Skip to main content

Full text of "Seventh-day Adventism renounced : after an experience of twenty-eight years by a prominent minister and writer of that faith"

See other formats




;'l ^ -'t'^^^O^ff' •S< 




^^'r^' V 



BX 6155.5 .C35 S4 1889 
Canright, Dudley Marvin, 

Seventh-day Adventism 

*- r\ 1-1/^1 1 mj^^a./^_ 

Seventh-Day Adventism 



The work of a specialist is highly 
valued when his particular line is un- 
der investigation. 

This work is the product of many 
years of careful study by a specialist 
on the history, methods and doctrines 
of Seventh- Day Adventists. For 
twenty-eight years I was intimately 
associated with that people, as mem- 
ber, minister, writer and author and 
aided much in building up that work. 
I joined them only fourteen years 
from their beginning, hence became 
well acquainted with all its founders, 
their early theories, and have all 
their first books published during the 
first forty years. Am perfectly fa- 
miliar with every argument they use 
and the answer to it. I know their 
inside history and weak points as 
others could not. It is a complete 
text book on that subject. Here is 
what competent judges say who have 
read and used it : 

"On some subjects there is one 
book that stands so far above all 
other books on the same subject that 
if a person has that one book he 
needs no other on that subject. 
Canright's ' Seventh-Day Adventism 
Renounced ' is just such a book. It 
is a complete and perfect exposure 
of that delusion from beginning to 
end. Adventists have attempted no 
reply to it for the simple reason that 
they cannot, so they are trying to 

throw doubt on his character and 
standing, but that also is a hopeless 
task. If you are troubled with Ad- 
ventism, get tins book. Read it; 
study it ; lend it ; confront them with 
it; insist on them meeting it, and 
you will have no more trouble with 
them." — Southland Evangelist, Hart- 
worth, Texas. 

" It is the best book I have ever 
seen on the subject, after a study of 
it for twenty years." — Rev. Wm. 
Armstrong, Canton, Pa., Genessee 
Conf. of M. E. Church. 

" It is a very full discussion of the 
question on which Adventists differ 
from us." — Baptist Christian Herald^ 
Detroit, Mich. 

" It is a thorough exposure of this 
modern delusion. How any system 
of error can survive such an expo- 
sure will be a mystery. This book 
ought to be circulated in every 
community where Adventism is 
preached." — Christian Oracle (Dis- 
ciple) Des Moines, Iowa. 

" I am delighted with it. It is 
kind, candid, careful, correct and 
comprehensive. I heartily commend 
the work as the best that has yet 
been published on that subject."— 
Prof. D. R. Dungan, President ol 
Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa. 

" He exposes with unsparing logic, 
but never with malice, the errors of 
Seventh-Day Adventism. This book 
is eminently fitted to do good." — 


Rev. Kendall Brooks, D. D., ex- 
President of Kalamazoo College, 

" I did not know that it was pos- 
sible to give so perfect an answer to 
the letter of Adventism. I have al- 
ways felt that its spirit was contrary 
to the Gospel. Your exposure is 
doubtless the ablest and most com- 
prehensive in existence." — Rev. 
Theodore Nelson, LL. D., late pres- 
ident of Kalamazoo Baptist College. 

*< I pronounce it simply overwhelm- 
ing." — Rev. B. F. Whittemore, Prin- 
cipal of Lester Seminary, Holden, Mo. 

" Your work is a book we have 
long needed, and now should be in 
the hands of every Christian." — Rev. 
J. Cairns, Colfax College, Wash. 

"It is a grand book." — M. McLel- 
lan, Melbourne, Australia. 

" No other book has fallen into 
our hands that is so well adapted to 
meet the sophistry and statements of 
Seventh-Day Adventists as this." — 
Central Free Will Baptists^ Farm- 
ington, W. Va. 

<' The most effective work that has 
yet been published." — Missionary 

" It would be a good plan to place 
a copy of it in every circulating li- 
brary in the Xzxi^:'— Methodist Mich- 
igan Christian Advocate, Detroit. 

" A strong and vigorous book on 
Seventh-Dayism. The best thing 
published upon this subject." — 
Chicago Standard, Baptist. 

" An interesting and valuable 
book." — Central Baptist. 

" There is no other book in the 
market that can possibly fill its 
place." — California Christian Ad- 
vocate, Methodist. 

" It is complete and unanswer- 
able." — Northern Christian Advo- 

"A very valuable book that ex- 
poses in a sharp and effective way 
the pretensions of modern Advent- 
\lisa,%^-^Arkamcis Baptists 

" A stalwart book which gives no 
uncertain sound. This is the first 
book which we have seen that ably 
and justly exposes to the world the 
true inwardness of the Seventh-Day 
Advent delusion." — Rev. G. J.Travis, 
Ph. D., Baptist. 

" It is by far the most complete and 
satisfactory treatment of the subject 
that I have seen." — Rev. J. Sunder- 
land, Baptist Cor. Sec. and Supt. of 
Missions, Minneapolis, Minn. 

"The work is a trenchant and 
conclusive expose and refutation of 
the doctrine in question." — Rev. 
John W. Haley, M. A., author of 
"Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible " 
and other works. 

" A most crushing refutation of 
their sophistries." — The Christian 
Pioneer, Australia. 

" A complete antidote to the falla- 
cies of our Seventh-Day friends." — 
Christian Colonist, Australia. 

President's Office, Little Rock 
University, Ark. : " ' Adventism Re- 
nounced ' is a most timely work, 
eminently fitted to combat the falla- 
cies at which it aims." — Prof. W. F. 

" * Adventism Renounced ' is like 
Webster's Dictionary or the sunshine, 
it needs no praise. No candid :nan 
can read the book and be an Ad- 
ventist. Every preacher should have 
a copy." — J. V. Coombs, President 
of Indiana College, Covington, Ind. 

" The book certainly surpasses in 
clearness, strength and adaptability 
to do the best work of any book 
which has ever appeared from the 
press on the Sabbath question and 
against Seventh-Day Adventists." — 
Texas Baptist and Herald. 

" It is certainly an excellent book, 
pronounced very unanimously as the 
ablest treatise on the subject, and 
would do good service in the hands 
of pastors." — Pacific Baptist ^ Port- 
land, Ore. 

«* It is the standard on Seventh* 


Day Adventism and no one who 
sends for it will be disappointed. 
We recommend it as simply and un- 
deniably the best work on the ques- 
tion, as it deals with its errors from 
the experimental standpoint." — The 
Standard, Cincinnati, O. 

" For an exhaustive discussion of 
the questions relating to the Seventh- 
Day and the first day, see * Seventh- 
Day Adventism Renounced,' by Rev. 
D. M. Canright."— David C. Cook 
Pub. Co., Chicago, in the New 
Adult Bible Class, April, 191 2. 

" What books would you recom- 
mend to meet the advocates of S. D. 
Adventism ? " Ans. " We would 
recommend you to read ' Seventh- 
Day Adventists Renounced,' by Eld. 
Canright." — The Christian Workers' 
Magazine, Oct., 191 2, published by 
the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago. 
No better recommend could be given. 

I close with three testimonies of 
men who were, like myself, long 
years in Adventism, but are now 
free in Christ : 

" Your grand book is received. I 
do not think I ever appreciated a 
book any more than I do this one, 
it is so complete and unanswerable." 
— Prof. C. C. Ramsey, nine years 
Professor in their colleges, and now 
in Harvard University. 

•• I heartily commend Elder Can- 
right's book as a faithful statement of 
the belief and practice of Seventh- 
Day Adventists, and the spirit and 
tendency of the system. Adventists 
''an never meet these argument!. " — 
Rev. D. B. Oviatt, seven years Presi- 
dent of the Pennsylvania Conf. of S. 
D. Adventists. 

••We were Seventh-Day Advent- 
ists for more than twenty years, be- 
lieving the doctrine firmly. Were 
familiarly acquainted with Elder 

White and wife and the inside his- 
tory of that people. We found it a 
yoke of bondage and obtained free- 
dom and the blessing of God in re- 
nouncing it and uniting with the 
Methodists. We heartily endorse 
Elder Canright's book as correctly 
representing that people and their 
faith. It is an unanswerable refuta- 
tion of that system." — Mr. and Mrs. 
C A. Russell, Otsego, Mich. 

I have selected only a few quota- 
tions from scores more like these, 
and have given only a few words 
from each of these, showing how 
this book is valued by good judges. 

Books and Tracts 

The above named bock, cloth 

binding, 416 pages, 
"Adventism Refuted." Ten Tracts, 

all in one package the chief points 

of the work condensed as follows : 
Sold only in a 

full package. 

No. I. Origin and History of Ad- 

No. 2. The Advent Message Ex 

No. 3. 25 Objections to Adventism. 

No. 4. Mrs. White and Her Visions. 

No. 5. The Jewish Sabbath Abol- 

No. 6. Why We Keep Sunday. 

No. 7. The Seventh Day Sabbath 
Test a Failure. 

No. 8. Is Sunday the Mark of the 
Beast ? 

No. 9. Not Under the Law. 

No. 10. The Commandments in the 
New Testament. 
Fleming H. RevellCo., Publishers. 

Order through any bookseller. 

Seventh«Day Adventism 







Late President of Kalamazoo College. 

" Ye know not when tlie time is," Jesus, Mark 13; 33. 
" Beware of false prophets." Jesus, Matt. 7: 15. 
" Keep my commandments." Jesus, John 14: 15. 

New York Chicago Toronto 

Fleming H. Revell Company 

London a.nd Edinburgh 

Entered according to Act of Congress, In the year 1889, by 

In the Oflace of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington 

Preface to Fourteenth Edition. 

"To criticise, expose and condemn others is not a pleasant 
task ; but when religious teachers enthrone error, and mis- 
lead honest people, silence would b^ unkind and censur- 

Being profoundly convinced that Seventh-Day Advent- 
ism is a system of error, I feel it my duty to publish what 
I know of it. I do it in the fear of God. Knowing the 
sorrow it has brought to my heart and to thousands, I 
must warn others against it. I do not question the honesty 
of the Adventists, but their sincerity does not sanctify 
their errors. I have had to speak plainly, but, I trust, 
kindly. I have had to treat each subject briefly, and leave 
many untouched, but I have taken up the main pillars of 
that faith ; if these fall, the whole must go down. 

It is now nearly twenty-five years since this book was 
first published. This is the fourteenth edition. It has been 
translated into several languages, sold by numerous pub- 
lishing houses, gone to the ends of the earth wherever 
Adventism has gone, and has been the greatest obstacle 
that work has ever had to meet. Yet Adventists have 
ventured no answer to it. Say what they may, it is 
evident that they would gladly answer it if they could do 
so safely. 

" Keplies to Eld. Canright," quoted in this work, is not 
an answer to this book, but to a few articles I wrote for a 
paper long before the book was published. The pamphlet 
itself proves this. The title page is dated " 1888," while 
my book was not published till one year later, 1889. See 



my title page. Then on page eighty of their pamphlet 1 
read this : " He promises a forthcoming book, by which 
we presume he designs to sweep away clean everything 
which his articles have left. It will receive due attention, 
if thought worthy of it, when it appears." This shows 
that this " Keply " was no answer to my book. One was 
promised but never appeared. The book discusses many 
topics not even mentioned in the articles, and, of course^ 
is much more complete every way. Considering that 
Adventists are always so ready for debate, discussion and 
replies, how is it that this book, that has bothered them 
more than all others which have appeared against them, 
is so carefully let alone by them ? The reason is manifest 
to all candid people. 

And here is what my Advent brethren thought of me 
before I left them : *' Battle Creek, Mich., July 13, 1881. 
Brother Canright ^ * * * j fQQ[ ^lore interest in you 
than in any other man, because I know your worth when 
the Lord is with you, as a laborer. James White." 

" Battle Creek, Mich., May 22, 1881. * * * It is 
time there was a change of the officers of the General 
Conference. I trust that if we are true and faithful the 
Lord will be pleased that we should constitute two of that 
Board. James White." 

"Battle Creek, Mich., Aug. 6, 1884. * * * You 
have long been with us, and we all love you. G. I. 

" Martinsburg, Neb., July 14, 1884. * * * You 
were a power in the world, and did a vast amount of 
good. * * * ^e need your help in the work greatly. 
Your precious talent, if humbly and fully consecrated to 
God, would be so useful. There are so many places where 
it would be a great help. G. I. Butler." 


Advent Review^ March, 1887: "We have felt exceed- 
ingly sad to part in our religious connection with one 
whom we have long esteemed as a dear brother." 

Advent Review^ March 22, 1887 : " In leaving us, he 
has taken a much more manly and commendable course 
than most of those who have w^ithdrawn from us, coming 
voluntarily to our leading brethren, and frankly stating 
the condition of mind he was in. He did this before his 
own church, in our presence, and, so far as we know, has 
taken no unfaii^, underhanded means to injure us in any 
way. He goes from our midst with no immoral stain 
upon his character, chooses associations more pleasant to 
himself. This is every man's personal privilege if he 
chooses to take it." 

The quotations in my book are from the Adventist 
books published up to the date when I wrote my book, 
1889. Since then most of their books have been reprinted 
and paged differently. To conform to these books as now 
paged, I would need to change many of my references. 
To do this I would have to reprint my whole book, as it 
is in electrotype plates. A change of a few plates would 
necessitate a change of all. So it leaves them as they 
were. The quotations are all there, only some are on a 
different page in their present editions. I took great 
care to have every quotation exactly correct. They are 

I design to be perfectly fair towards my Advent 
brethren. I was with them twenty-eight years, from the 
age of nineteen to forty-seven, the most active years of my 
life. I was dearly loved by them and I loved them. I 
love them now. I have thousands of dear friends among 
them still. It was a terrible trial to break away from all 
these tender ties. Even now the tears fall fast as I write 


these lines. But truth and duty were dearer to me than 
social ties. 

Again I bear them record that they are a sincere, 
devoted, self-sacrificing people, thoroughly believing what 
they profess. They have many excellent qualities, and 
many lovely Christian people among them. Like all 
churches, they have their full share of undesirable mem- 
bers, not from any immoral teachings, but from human 
frailty, common in all churches. Daily I pray for them 
that the Lord may bless all that is good in them and for- 
give, and, in some way, overrule for good when they are 
in error. This is all I dare ask for myself. 

D. M. Canright. 

My Present Standing. 

"Whex a prominent man leaves one church or party and 
joins an opposing one and gives his reasons for it he may 
expect that his old associates will reply to him. I expected 
no exception in my case when I renounced Adventism, so 
have not been disappointed. The great majority of my 
former brethren have been very friendly to me and treated 
me kindly. A few, a very few, have done otherwise. 
Their object has been to counteract my influence against 
what they regard as God's work. These few have started 
the report that I have been sorry I left Adventism, that I 
have said so, have tried to return to them, have confessed 
that my book was false, and some have said that I was 
very poor, a physical and mental wreck, with no hope of 
salvation, etc. These reports are accepted as facts by 
honest brethren and repeated till they are believed by 
many Adventists the world over. I have denied them in 
every possible way, but they are still believed and re- 
peated, and doubtless always will be. I leave God to 
judge between us. 

I now and here for the hundredth time solemnly affirm 
before God that I renounced Adventism because I believed 
it to be an error. I have never once regretted that I did 
so, have never intimated to any one that I have had the 
least desire to go back to that people. It would be im- 
possible for me to do such a thing and be an honest man. 
I am now (1915) well in body and mind, have a good 
home worth $10,000 or $12,000, and have four grown 
children, of whom any man would be proud. On leaving 



the Adventists I joined the Baptist church at Otsego, 
Mich., and became its pastor till it was built up into a 
prosperous church. They have been my ardent friends to 
this day. Twenty years ago I moved to Grand Eapids, 
Mich., took a new mission and built this up, organized it 
into a church which has become one of the strong churches 
of the city, having several hundred members with a fine 
edifice. Have twice been its pastor, always an active 
member. At present I teach a large adult Bible class 
every Lord's day and often preach for them. Have 
always been in perfect harmony with the church. They 
honor me as their father, consult me on all important 
matters, and hotly resent the foolish reports which some 
circulate concerning me. 

Out of scores of printed testimonies before me I select 
only a few which speak for themselves : 

" Grand Eajpids^ Mich.^ l^ov. 1, 1907, 
" To whom it may concern : 

" Having received many letters from all parts of 
the United States from those that have been informed by 
Adventists that Eev. D. M. Canright was not a member 
of a Baptist church and many other things pertaining to 
his character, we very emphatically denounce any such 
statements and will say that he is now and has been for 
many years an active member of the Berean Baptist 
church of this city and twice its pastor, a man above re- 
proach and above all a noble Christian. 

" Kespectfully, W. H. Adrews, former clerk and charter 
member of the above named church. I hereby certify to 
the above. 

" Rev. Eobekt Geay, 
" Pastor of the Berean Church." 


" Grand Rapids, Mich., Ap7'il 9, 1910, 
" To wJioin it may concern, world wide, 
" Deae Beethren ; 

" This letter is to say that Kev. D. M. Canright 
has been known to the undersigned for many years as an 
earnest, consecrated Christian man, and a true minister of 
Jesus Christ. He has been ' a faithful and true witness ' 
against the errors of the Seventh-Day Adventists in his 
books and tracts for many years. 

" Olivee W. Van Osbel, 
" Moderator Grand Kiver Yalley Association. 

" Alexandee Dodds, 
" President City Baptist Mission Society. 

" W. I. COBUEN, 

" President Baptist Ministers' Conference." 

The Baptists are not the only people who think w^ell 
of the Eev. Mr. Canright. A Congregational minister 
adds his word : 

" This certifies that I have been acquainted with the 
Rev. D. M. Canright of this city for more than forty-five 
years. At least twenty years of that time he was an Ad- 
ventist preacher, and during those years his reputation as 
a Christian man and as a preacher of rare ability was of 
the highest order. His name among the Adventist people 
of this state was of the highest order. His name among 
the Adventist people of this state was a household word 
for righteousness of character, and an able defender of 
their faith. And when he left the Adventist denomina- 
tion, all who knew the man, if they were at all imbued 
with the Christian spirit, must admit that the change 
made by him was due to a candid, conscientious con- 
viction of what he believed to be right. There could bo 


no other motive in his case, for he was successful beyond 
many of his bretliren, and honored by them in the highest 
degree. For at least twenty years he and his beloved 
family have lived in this city and he has maintained the 
same reputation that he had, as a Christian gentleman and 
respected citizen. "What I have written is from personal 
knowledge of Kev. D. M. Canright and of the Adventist 
denomination in this state. 


" Pastor of the Wallin Congregational Church. 
" Grand Rwpids^ Mich., 

April m, i9ioy 
The Methodist pastors add their tribute as follows : 

'' Various inquiries having come to the different mem- 
bers of the Association concerning the character and 
standing of Rev. D. M. Canright, the regular monthly 
meeting of the Methodist Ministers' Association of Grand 
Rapids, Mich., did, by an unanimous vote, adopt the follow- 
ing expression of its confidence in and regard for the per- 
sonal worth and ministerial usefulness of Brother Canright. 

" Rev. D. M. Canright, formerly a minister in the 
Seventh-Day Adventist Association, more recently a 
minister in the Baptist Association of this city, has been 
known by some of our number in person for several years 
and by reputation by the rest, and all our knowledge and 
information concerning him are of the most favorable kind. 

" Any reflections on his personal character as a man, a 
husband, a citizen, a son or a Christian are without foun- 
dation, in fact, are unwarranted by any facts known to 
his intimate acquaintances. He is honored among his 
brethren, respected in his own community, and is com- 
mended by us as being worthy of confidence and trust 


He has had an honored and useful ministry, and in no 
sense is deserving of the attacks made on him. 

" Done at Grand Rapids, Mich., this 11th day of April, 
1910, by the authority of the Grand Eapids Methodist 
Ministers' Association, by 

" John R. T. Lathrop, District Supt. 

" Charles JSTease, President. 

" J. R. WooTEN, Secretary." 

" Grand Rajpids^ Mich., April 11, 1910. 

" It is with sincere pleasure that I write concerning the 
character and integrity of the Rev. D. M. Canright. I 
have known him and his family a good many years, and 
do not hesitate to say that they are very estimable people, 
and have the confidence of their neighbors and friends in 
the community. 

"I consider Mr. Canright a Christian gentleman in 
every sense of the word ; a man of the highest integrity 
and one who desires, in every project with which he is 
connected, to make righteousness his guide to action. 

" He has done business with our bank for a good many 
years and I have personally had reason to test his integrity 
and am unequivocal in my expression of confidence in him. 
" Yery truly yours, 

" Charles W. Garfielo." 

(Mr. Garfield is president of a bank with $2,000,000.) 

Adventists sometimes say I left them four or five times. 
I withdrew from that church just once, no more, that was 
final. Their church records at Battle Creek and Otsego 
will show that. For years I was troubled with doubts 
about some of their doctrines and three times stopped 
preaching for a short period, but remained a member in 
good standing, At a large camp-meeting I was persuaded 


to swallow my doubts, take up the work again, confess 
that I had been in the dark, and go on again. I yielded 
my judgment to the entreaties of my brethren and the 
love I had for old associates and said what I soon re- 
gretted. I found it a terrible struggle to break away 
from what had held me so long. 

Since I left them they try to make it appear that I did 
not amount to much anyway. " Sour grapes," said the 
fox to the delicious fruit which he could not reach ! As a 
refutation of their detractions, see Chapter II of m}^ book. 
I will here state only a few facts briefly : 

During two years, 18T6, 1877, I was one of the general 
conference committee of three which had control of all 
their work in the world. There is no higher authority in 
the denomination. How did it happen that I was placed 
in that office if I was not one of their best men ? Year 
after year I was elected on the boards having charge of 
their most important institutions, such as their Publishing 
House, College, Sanitarium, Sabbath School Association, 
etc., etc. For proof of this see their printed year books 
where my name appear constantly. I w^as made theo- 
logical teacher in their college, president of a state con- 
ference, associate editor of a paper, etc. I selected and 
arranged the course of reading which all their ministers 
had to follow, and I was sent to their annual state con- 
ferences to examine these preachers in those studies, in 
their theology, and in their fitness for the ministry. la 
such work usually committed to an inferior man ? 

But it was as a writer in their papers, as the author of 
numerous tracts, pamphlets and books covering nearly 
every controverted point of their faith, as a lecturer and 
debater in defense of their doctrines, that I was the best 
known during the last fifteen years I was with them. In 


these lines, not a man among them stood as prominent as 
I did. Every one at all familiar with their work during 
that period knows that I tell only the simple truth in the 
case. They know it, too. For my writings the office 
once paid me $500 in one check and many other times 
different sums. After twenty-seven years they still pub- 
lish and use several of my tracts as being better than any- 
thing they have been able to produce since. 

My long and thorough acquaintance with Adventism 
and all their arguments prepared me to answer them as 
no other could. Hundreds of ministers from all parts 
have written me their thanks for the aid my book has 
been to them in meeting Adventism. Did not God in his 
providence prepare me for this work ? I humbly believe 
he did, and this reconciles me to the long and bitter ex- 
periences I had in that bondage. But if God and the 
truth is honored, I am content. 

The only question is, do I know their doctrines well 
enough to state them clearly, and have I the ability to 
answer them plainly ? Let my work be the answer. 

Since I withdrew Adventists have published five or six 
different tracts to head off my influence. If I amount to 
so little, why all this effort ? What they do refutes what 
they say. God has preserved me to outlive nearly all the 
Adventist ministers with whom I began laboring. At 
seventy-five am full of faith in God and the hope of 
eternal life through our Lord Jesus Christ. 

I love those brethren still and know that most of them 
are honest Christian people, but in error on many of their 
riews. I would be glad to help them if I could. 

D. M. Canright, 
Pastor Emeritus of the Berean Baptist Church. 

Grand JRapids^ Michigan, 

Table of Contents. 


Preface to Fourteenth Edition, 5 

My Present Standing, 9 

Introduction, 21 

By Rev. Dr. Nelson. , ^^^^ 

CHAPTEE I — Doctrines and Methods of Seventh- 
Day Adventists, 2^ 

Their Doctrines — Extent of Their Work — Hostility to 
Others — Methods of Work — How to Meet It — Lack of 

CHAPTEK II— An Experience of Twenty-Eight 

Years in Adventism, 37 

Accepts Adventism — Ordained — First Doubts — Posi- 
tion of Elder White and Wife — Leading Men in Doubt 
♦-Extensive Labors — Elder White's Death — Doubts 
Increase — At Work Again — Renounces the Doctrin© 
— Why? — Positions Held — False Reports — Joins the 

CHAPTER III— Adventism a Yoke of Bondage, . 59 

Confessions of Ministers, Etc. — Ministers Who Have 
Renounced It-;r-College Professors — Physicians — 
Leads to Infidelity — Church Backslidden. 

CHAPTER lY— Origin, History and Failures of 

Adventism, 67 

Time Set for the End of the World in the 2d Century, 
10th Century, 17th Century, and Often Since — Sev- 
enth-Day Adventists' Origin — Miller — Fruit of Miller- 
ism — Time Setting — Miller's Confession — No Special 
Message — Eighteen Mistakes. / 

CHAPTER Y — My Objections to the Seventh-Day / 

Adventist System, 81 

Twenty-Six Objections — Their Position on the Proph- 
ecies — Ignorance of Many of Them. 



CHAPTER YI— The Two-Horned Beast and 

THE Messages, 89 

The Advent Theory — It is the Papacy— Arguments An- 
swered—Image of the Beast — Deadly Wound — Mark of 
the Beast — Absurdities — Who Has the Mark of the 
Beast? — The Three Messages— God's Seal. 

CHAPTER y II— The Sanctuary, 117 

Their Theory— The Shut Door — New Theories— Within 
the Yail-The Temple— Why They are Wrong— The 
Gospel Temple. 

CHAPTER YIII— Mrs. White and Her Reve- 
lations, 129 

Warned Against False Prophets — Swedenborg — Ann 
Lee — Joanna Southcott — Joseph Smith — Mrs. White's 
Claims to Inspiration— Writes a New Bible — It is Their 
Guide— Not Inspired — Plagiarisms — Visions Suppressed 
— Her Mistakes— The Shut Door — False Predictions — 
Reform Dress — Philosophy of Her Trances — Harm She 
Does— Becomes Rich — The Result. 

CHAPTER IX— The Nature of the Sabbath 

Commandment, 166 

Both Moral and Ceremonial — Benefit of — Days Do Not 
Differ Naturally — Must Be Made Holy — Ceremony De- 
fined—Sabbath Chiefly Ceremonial— Temporal — On the 
Round Earth — Day Line — At the Poles — Lost Time. 

CHAPTER X— Why Christians Keep Sunday, 185 

Lord's Day Traced Back to the Apostles — Rev. 1:10 — 
Testimony of Lexicons and Commentators — Jesus is 
Lord — A Fitting Day — Importance of the Resurrection 
Day— John 20:26— Pentecost— Acts 20:7—1 Cor. 16: 

CHAPTER XI-— Did the Pope Change the 

Sabbath? 210 

Advent Saying-s — Catechisms — Catholic Testimony- - 
Pliny — Barnabas — "Teaching of the Apostles" — Justin 
Martyr — Dionysius — Bardesanes — Clement. — Tertullian 
— Origen — Apostolical Constitutions — Anatolius- -Vic- 
torinus— Peter — Eusebius— Cyclopedias. 


CHAPTEK XII — Sabbatarian Positions on the 

History of Sunday Refuted, 234 

"Bible Only"— "Fathers Unreliable"— Sunday Not the 
Sabbath — Their Authors Examined — Pagans and Sun- 
day — Constantine and Sunday — Exact Date When the 
Sabbath Was Changed — Arguments Refuted. 

CHAPTER XIII— The Sabbath in the Old Testa- 
ment, 249 

In Genesis— Ex. 16— "Jewish Sabbath"— Ex. 31:16, 17 
— In the Decalogue — Isa. 56, 58 and 66 — Eze. 22. 

CHAPTER XIA^— The Sabbath in the New Testa- 
ment, 264 

A Radical Change — New Testament Decalogue — 
Christ's Example— Mark 2:27, 28; Matt. 24:20; 28:1; 
Luke 23:56— The Time Table— In Acts— Paul's Ex- 

CHAPTER XY— The Jewish Sabbath Abolished, 282 
Col. 2:14-17— Sabbath Days, the Seventh Day— The 
Greek Word for Sabbath — The Seventh Day Associ- 
ated with Meats, Drinks, Feast Days, Etc. — Comments 
by Others — No Annual Sabbaths — A Shadow — Types 
in Eden— Gal. 4:10; Rom. 14:5. 

CHAPTER XVI — A History of Numerous Efforts 

TO Revive the Jewish Sabbath. All Fail, . 298 

Why Not Found Out Before?— Efforts to Revive the 
Sabbath Fail — At the Reformation — In England — Sev- 
enth-Day Baptists — Adventist Effort — As a Test It 
Fails — Their "New Light" — Opposed by Luther, Bax- 
ter, Bunyan, Roger Williams, Etc. 

CHAPTER XAai— The Law, 305 

Antinomianism — "The Law" Defined — The Two Laws 
— The Decalogue Alone Not the Law of God — The 
Law Was Given by Moses — Did Not Exist Until Moses 
— Was Given Only to Jews — Not for Gentiles, and 
Was Only Temporal — God's Higher Law Is Eternal — 
Object of the Law — Letter of the Law Abolished and 
the Law Changed — Law of Liberty. 

CHAPTER XVIII— The Decalogue Examined, . . 338 
Shown to Apply Only to Israel— Catholic Division oi' 
— Eminent Authors on Its Abolition. 


CHAPTER XIX— The Two Covenants, .... 350 
The Covenant Defined. It is the Decalogue — 13 
Found in Ex. 19 to 24 — Extent of — Abolished — How 
the New Differs from the Old — Comments. 

CHAPTER XX— What Law are Christians Under? 360 
The Authority of Christ — He Gave Commandments — 
Apostles Gave Commandments — These are the Com- 
mandments of God. 

CHAPTER XXI— Forty-Seven Prominent Texts 

Used by Sabbatarians Examined, 366 

This Includes in Order as They Come Every Impor- 
tant Text on the Sabbath or the Law from Gen. 2:1-3, 
to Rev. 22:14. 

CHAPTER XXII— The Nature of Man, .... 395 

The Faith of All People — In the Apocrypha — Josephua 
— Faith of the Early Church — Soul Sleeping a Sickly 
Plant — Is No Cure for Infidelity — The Rational Argu- 
ment — Bible Argument — Man's Spirit Is Deathless — 
The Body Only a Tabernacle — Their Texts Answered 
— Endless Punishment — Annihilation Texts Exam- 



By Rev. Theo. Nelson^ LL. D., late President of 
Kalamazoo College, 

I MET for the first time the author of " Adventism 
Eenounced " in the autumn of 1865. He was then a 
rising young minister in high favor with his people. Then, 
as now, I had entire confidence in his sincerity. Nor do 
I think it strange that, after more than twenty years de- 
voted to Seventh-Day Adventist propagandism, he should 
finally renounce their doctrines, and return to the orthodox 
faith. It is not necessary to impute any sinister or un- 
worthy motives. Eather, it is easy enough to believe that 
experience and study, or the evolution of intelligence, as 
well as the irresistible logic of events, would inevitably 
bring to pass this result. Seventh-Day Adventists have 
always made a great deal of the " signs of the times," of 
earthquakes and falling stars, of "wars and rumors of 
wars." Arguments which might profoundly impress the 
imagination of a youth during the troubled period of our 
great civil war, would naturally lose their hold upon 
the riper judgment of a man in these "piping tunes of 

Toward the Seventh-Day Adventists as a people I 
cherish none but feelings of kindness. Generally, their 
piety is undoubtedly genuine, though misanthropic and 
melancholy. They take a low view of human nature, and 
practically isolate themselves from their neighbors, and 



from those affairs which concern the well-being of society 
as a whole. They stand aloof from every movement 
which looks to human progress, because they believe that 
human progress is impossible, and that mankind are 
already doomed ; that destruction is impending, " even at 
the door." In fact, their religious faith restrains, if it 
does not destroy, their sentiment of patriotism, and causes 
them to regard with suspicion, if not with feelings of hos- 
tility, the free government under which they live. Noth- 
ing can be more absurd than their interpretations of current 
events, and, especially, their belief that our general and 
state governments are about to be converted into engines 
of religious persecution and despotism. It cannot be other- 
wise than that many sincere Seventh-Day Adventists, who 
have been such by what they believed the imperative 
necessity of Scripture teaching, will be grateful to Mr. 
Canright for aiding them to put off a yoke which fetters 
their usefulness and galls their minds. 

Seventh-Day Adventists believe and teach that before 
the second coming of Christ the United States will form 
a union of church and state, and, like France and Spain in 
the seventeenth century, will become a persecuting power. 
They hold that the prophetic Scriptures clearly fore- 
tell this extraordinary change in the form and spirit of 
our government. Touching the correctness of the in- 
terpretations of Scripture upon which their expectations 
are based, they admit no possibility of mistake. They 
assume to know that they have the right key to prophecy 
— that they have the " present truth." They believe and 
teach that the Seventh-Day Adventists are to be especially 
tried in this ordeal that is being prepared by the civil 
government ; that they are to be the chief victims of the 
fiery persecutions that will be waged against the " Saintg 


of the Most High " ; that they are to suffer, at the hands 
of the secular power, imprisonments, tortures, " the spoil- 
ing of their goods," and perhaps death itself. Indeed, 
they stake their whole system of doctrine upon this mean- 
ing of the Word of God, and they regard these momentous 
events, which they claim the Bible forecasts, as much a 
reality as though those events had already transpired. 
Those events are a reality to them and have the same 
value in argument, and the same authority in action, as 
history itself. In their publications and sermons they 
often adopt the style of the confessor who is already 
brought to the scaffold, or bound to the stake ; they speak 
out in a tone of defiant, heroic submission, as though the 
fagots were being kindled and the crown of martyrdom 
were in full view. To one who is familiar with the his- 
tory of religious persecutions, and has studied the progress 
and development of religious freedom, especially in Anglo- 
Saxon nations ; to one who is fairly acquainted with the 
spirit of the age and country in which we live, this 
ostentatious martyr-spirit of our Adventist friends seems 
quite absurd. Were it not for their well-known upright- 
ness and probity of character, we should be disposed to 
challenge their belief, such is their eagerness to find its 
proof and confirmation in events which have no such 
meaning. Under our form of government would it be 
possible to achieve a more intimate and perfect union of 
" church and state " than is embodied in the government 
of monarchical English? Such a change would be a 
greater miracle than for God to grow a giant oak in an 
instant. The trend of our civilization, the most powerful 
currents of public opinion, are all in the opposite direction. 
Yet, even in England, Adventists are free to publish their 
peculiar doctrines, to establish churches, and to pursue 


their vocations like other men. Eeligious freedom is the 
spirit of the age, and, most of all, the spirit of the age in 
America. Hence, we say, there need be no fears for the 
grave forebodings of our Advent friends. 

Theo. JS'elson. 



Seventh-Day Adventism originated about seventy-five 
years ago in the work of Mr. Miller, who set the time for 
the end of the world in 1843-4. Adding some doctrines 
to the original faith, Elder James White and wife in 1846 
became the leaders of the Seventh-Day branch of Ad- 
ventism. Their headquarters were at different times at 
Paris, Me., Saratoga, Oswego, and Rochester, N. Y. In 
1855 they settled permanently at Battle Creek, Mich., 
*vhich remained the center of the work till recently. 


In doctrine they differ radically from evangelical 
churches. The main points are these as taught in all 
their books : They hold to the materiality of all things ; 
believe in the sonship of Christ ; believe that they only 
have a correct understanding of the prophecies to which 
they give most of their attention ; that the end of the 
world is to occur in this generation ; that we are now in 
the Judgment which began in 1844 ; that the Seventh 
day, Saturday, must be kept ; that keeping Sunday is the 
mark of the beast ; that all should pay tithes ; that Mrs. 
White is inspired as were the writers of the Bible ; that 
the Bible must be interpreted to harmonize with her writ- 
ings ; that they are called of God to give the last warning 
to,^ the world ; that the dead are unconscious ; that the 
wicked and the devil will be annihilated ; that all churches 
but their own are Babylon and rejected of God ; that 
everybody but themselves will soon become spiritualists ,• 



that when Christ comes only 144,000 out of all then living 
on the earth will be saved, and all these will be Seventh 
Day Adventists. Hence, they have no fellowship with 
other Christians ; never work with them in any way, but 
zealously proselyte from all. 

They believe in the Bible, in conversion, in purity of 
life, in rigid temperance, in strict morality, and in other 
good things common to all churches. There are many 
excellent persons among them. In character they are not 
be compared with the spiritualists, infidels, etc., as is some- 
times unjustly done. 


Their Year Book for 1912 reports the following : 

Conferences, 129 ; mission fields, 87 ; organized 
churches, 2,769 ; membership, 90,808 ; unorganized, 15,- 
758 ; total, 104,528. Ordained ministers, 828 ; licensed 
ministers, 458 ; missionaries, 1,234 ; book canvassers, 1,697 ; 
total laborers, 4,346 ; Sabbath Schools, 4,151 ; member- 
ship, 101,161 ; church schools, 594 ; students, 13,357 ; 
colleges and academies, 86 ; students, 7,169 ; publishing 
houses, 28 ; employees, 610 ; sanitariums, 74 ; employees, 
1,989 ; tithes, $1,338,689.65 ; average per member, $12.81 ; 
contributions, for missions, home church work, tithes and 
all funds by the denomination, $2,223,767.52. 

They publish 121 periodicals in twenty-eight languages. 
Books and tracts published in ninety-one languages. 

The above will give a fair idea of the strength of that 
church. However, their main efficiency is in the distri- 
bution of their literature. Every member, old and young, 
down to little children, is taught and urged to engage in 
every way possible in distributing these tracts, papers and 
books through every possible channel. Every one believes 


he is doing God's work when he does this. Hence every \ 
member is a missionary in some way. The result is their I 
literature is coming to be widely scattered the world over. ] 
Yet the results of all this tremendous outlay of money and 
work are very meagre. In the last four years with 4,000 
laborers in the field, they have only averaged a gain of 
4,000 members per year, or one for every worker. They 
have been at work now for seventy-five years to get 104, ■ 
000 members. The Mormons, starting about the same 
date, now number 500,000, nearly five times as many. 
The Christian Scientists, only about half as old, have over 
a million members. There is very little real spiritual 
power in it. The work is done mostly by hard labor and 
argument, not by any such mighty power as attended the 
work of the Apostles, or Luther, or Wesley, or Moody 
and many others. Their work now extends to all parts 
of the civilized world and into many heathen lands. 

The number of their actual converts does not tell the 
harm they do. Where they convert one they confuse a 
score, who after that have no settled faith in any church, 
and are useless for any Christian work. Other conscien- 
tious persons are bothered and worried over it for years, 
not knowing what to do. 


One of the highly objectionable features of that system is 
the bitter hostility of its believers towards all other churches. 
Their theory is tha;t all churches but their own were utterly 
rejected of God in 1844 for not embracing Miller's doctrine. 
Thus Mrs. White says : " I saw the state of the different 
churches since the second angel proclaimed their fall [in 
1844]. They have been growing more and more corrupt. 
* * * Satan has taken full possession of the churches as 


a body. * * * The churches were left as were the Jews; 
and they have been filling up with every unclean and hate- 
ful bird. I saw great iniquity and vileness in the churches; 
yet they profess to be Christians. Their professions, their 
prayers and their exhortations are an abomination in the 
sight of God. Said the angel, God will not smell in their 
assemblies. Selfishness, fraud and deceit are practiced by 
them without the reprovings of conscience. " Spiritual Gifts, 
Vol. I, pages 189, 190. She says it is the devil who answers 
their prayers. Thus: *'I saw them look up to the throne 
and pray, Father give us thy spirit; Satan would then 
breathe upon them an unholy influence." Early Writings, 
page 47. Again: ''The nominal churches are filled witi 
fornication and adultery, crime and murder, the result of 
base, lustful passion; but these things are kept covered." 
Testimonies, Vol. II, page 449. All intelligent people know 
that such statements are a misrepresentation of the evan- 
gelical churches of to-day. Elder White says : " Baby- 
lon, the nominal church, is fallen ; God's people have 
come out of her. She is now the synagogue of Satan." 
Present Truth. April, 1850. 

Hence they say that the revivals and conversions in the 
churches are largely a deception, the work of the devil, not 
of God. Mrs. White says of them: ''The converts are not 
renewed in heart or changed in character." "They will 
exult that God is working marvelously for them, when the 
work is that of another spirit. Under a religious guise, 
Satan will spread his influence over the land. He hopes to 
deceive many hy leading them to think that God is still with 
the churches.'''' Great Controversy, pages 294, 296. On this 
the Keview and Herald, May 3, 1887, says: "We are aware 
that to assume that this revival work, so unquestionably ac- 
cepted by all the churches, is not genuine, will cause the 
hands of Christendom to be raised in holy horror. * * * 


If He [God] is with us, He has not been with the popular 
churches in any marked manner since they rejected the Ad- 
vent message of 184^-4:, and they are congratulating them- 
selves over delusive appearances, and a prosperity which has 
no existence in fact. The hand of God cannot direct two 
movements so antagonistic in nature. " 

Believing this, they eagerly watch for evidence to prove 
it and shut their eyes to any facts against it. So they rejoice 
at any unfavorable thing they can hear against ministers, 
churches, or members. They report it, repeat it, publish it, 
mangnify it, and live on it. To weaken, divide, or break 
up a church, is their delight. They heartily join with world- 
lings, infidels and atheists in their opposition to churches, 
and thus strengthen their unbelief and help them to perdi- 
tion. They have gathered up all the most unfavorable things 
possible to find against the churches and put it in a book 
occupying thirty pages, and this they hand out for all to 
read. It is sad to see honest men devoting their lives to 
such highly censurable work, which must please Satan y/^ 


Seventh-Day Adventists dwell much on how easy it i& to 
be deceived, to be led by Satan, when we think it is the 
Lord — to believe a lie for the truth. It is amusing to see 
how innocently they apply all this to others, and never 
dream that it has any application to themselves! What, tkey 
deceived? ^A^?/ misled? Impossible! They know they lii-e 
right. Exactly, and that is just the way all feel, whether 
they be Mormons, Shakers, Catholics, or what not. The 
Adventists themselves are an illustration of the ease with 
which people are misled. 


Tent Meetings. Largely they use tents to enter new 
fields. Being a novelty, they attract attention. At first 


they present subjects which will offend no one till they gain 
the confidence of the people. Gradually they introduce 
their peculiar dogmas, then come ov^ more boldly, till at 
length they denounce all other churches as Babylon, and 
their pastors as hirelings and deceivers. They say these 
pastors cannot defend their doctrines; dare not try. The}' 
offer rewards to any who will prove so and so; boast how 
they have scared this one, defeated that one, and silenced 
another. If in sermons the least reference is made to them, 
they call it persecution, give out a review, and do every- 
thing to provoke controversy. When the resident pastors 
are compelled to defend themselves, the Adventists claim to 
be greatly abused. 

If a doctor, lawyer, teacher, or business man should 
enter a town and denounce all others of his profession as 
quacks, fools, or deceivers, how would he be treated ? All 
would combine against him as a common enemy. 

This is the way the pastors and churches meet the attacks 
of the Adventists, because compelled to. Like Ishmael of 
old, the hand of the Adventist is against every man, and 
hence every man's hand is against them. Gen. 16: 12. 
It is useless for them to deny this, for all know it to be true. 
They all do it. I was taught that way and followed it, and 
taught others to do the same. 

Camp^meetings. Adventists hold many camp-meet- 
ings yearly. Here their ablest speakers preach their doc- 
trines to thousands, and distribute their literature widely. 
They hire the papers to print lengthy flattering reports of 
Iheir meetings, which they write themselves. Their reporters 
are trained for this special work. They gain wide attention, 
and impress many in this way. 

Bible Readings, Hundreds of their men, women, and 
even young girls, are trained with printed lessons which they 
learn by heart, to ^^o from house to house and give Bible 


readings. At first they conceal their real object and 
name, till they get a foothold. Then they cantiousl}^ in- 
]^ ■ troduce their tenets, work against pastors and churches, 
and lead away many. 

I Book-selling. Hundreds also are employed to canvass 
for their doctrinal books. The real nature of the book is 
studiously concealed, and the subscriber is deceived into 
buying a radical Advent book. 

Distrihiition of Tracts. In every possible way, publicly, 

privately, from tent or church, by book-agents, colporteurs, 

V/1 Bible-readers, or private individuals, in depots, on boats, 

in stores, or families, through the mails, by sale, loan or 

gift, their tracts are persistently crowded everywhere. 

Missions. They have Missions in many of the large 
cities and in foreign lands ; but they are largely proselyting 
agencies. They do little among the heathen, or for 
the destitute and fallen, but go into the best families to 
which they can gain access, and gather the converts whom 
other missionaries have made. Thus Mrs. White instructs 
them : " Mistakes have been made in not seeking to reach 
ministers and the higher classes with the truth. * * * 
Educate men and women to labor for these higher classes 
both here and in other countries." Testimony No. 33, 
pages 108, 109. Jesus sent his disciples into the highways 
and hedges for the poor, lame and blind, for publicans, 
harlots and sinners ; but Mrs. White does not relish that 
kind. She wants them from " the ministers and higher 
classes," " the whole who need no physician," those who 
can bring talent and money into the cause. 

Where They Work. Adventists have the best success 
in new fields, where they are least known. Hence the 
w^estern States is where they are most numerous. In New 
England, where they started, they have had to struggle 


hard to hold their own. In some of the older fields they 
have lost in numbers, in others the gain is very small. In 
hundreds of places where there were fair sized, active 
churches in the past, now no church at all, or a straggling, 
j discouraged handful. Battle Creek is a fair illustration. 
I This was their headquarters for forty years. Once there 
I were 2,000 Sabbath keepers here, all united. Now there 
: are less than 1,000, divided into four opposing parties, 
their influence entirely gone. The same is true elsewhere. 
About all the converts they make are at the outset. After 
a few years' acquaintance, they have no influence and few 
or none join them. Their churches grow smaller, gener- 
ally, till they are unnoticed. The average membership of 
their churches is 29 — exceedingly small ; how different 
from the evangelical churches ! The longer these are in 
a town the stronger tbey grow, and the more influence 
they have generally. Eat Adventism does not wear. 


f People are led into Adventism from lack of information. 
Hence, when Adventism enters a town the people should 
be told plainly what it is, what its effects are, and wherein 
it is unscriptural. Quite generally pastors make a mistake 
in letting it alone for weeks, till it has gained a foothold. 
I always noticed that where the pastors united and worked 
against us on the start, we could do but little. So I would 
advise churches and pastors to take right hold of the mat- 
ter earnestly as soon as people are interested in it. Preach 
on it ; visit those who are being led away ; hold Bible- 
readings ; furnish them with proper books and tracts. Sit 
down patiently and answer arguments. Yisit them again 
s and again. Adventists will work a whole year, will go a 
I hundred times, will give them scores of tracts to proselyte 


one person. If we would work a tenth as hard, scarcely 
one would be led away. People love to j.^c noticed. The 
very attention they receive from the Adventists often 
wins them more than their arguments. 


Adventism is founded on time, and time will kill it. It 
began by setting a definite time, 1844, for the end of the 
world, and failed. Now they hold that it must come in this 
generation beginning in 1844. This is only another way 
of time setting. In time all this will fail and overthrow 
their system. Then will come doubt, discouragement, di- 
visions, apostacies, infidelity, and ruin to souls. This end 
is inevitable. The wider their influence now, the more ter- 
rible the disaster then. These wild, enthusiastic, fanatical 
moves which end in failure are the delight of Satan, as they 
bring disgrace upon the cause of Christ and end in infidelity. 
That such will be the end of Adventism I have not a doubt. 



The men whom God has chosen to lead out in the great 
religious movements of the past have, with few exceptions, 
been men of high education, refinement, and great talents. 
Moses, the founder of Judaism, " was learned in all the wis- 
dom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in 
deeds." Acts 7 : 22. Nehemiah, who restored Jerusalem 
after the captivity, was cup-bearer to the king. Neh. 2. So 
Daniel, the great prophet, had " knowledge and skill in all 
learning and wisdom." Dan. 1:17. He was prime min- 
ister of a mighty empire for many years. Paul was so re- 
nowmed for his learning, that the king said to him : " Much 
learning doth make thee mad." Acts 26 : 24. He did for 
Christianity ten times more than all the other apostles to- 
gether. It is to him, and not to the other apostles, that 


the Gentile world is indebted for Christianity. Then the 
twelve, though uneducated, had the advantage over all oth&j 
reformers, that they were taught directly by the Son of 
G. a, and could work miracles. 

St. Augustine, A. D. 353-430, the father of Christian 
theology, to whom the church owes almost as much as to 
PaUi, was highly educated. As is well known, Luther was 
a thorough scholar, educated in the best schools of his day, 
and filled a professor's chair in a university. So Calvin and 
Melanchthon were both profound scholars, occupying pro- 
fessor .'^ chairs in halls of learning. Zwingle, the great Swiss 
reformer, was celebrated for his learning and scholarship. 
Wiclif, the "Morning Star of the Reformation," was a 
graduate of Oxford, England, and a doctor of divinity 
Cranmer, the great English reformer, was a graduate, a 
doctor of divinity, archbishop, and regent of the kingdom. 
Wesley, the father of Methodism, was a graduate of Ox- 
ford, a man of vast reading, the author or editor of com- 
\ mentaries, grammars, dictionaries, etc. It is a false idea 
I that God generally uses ignorant men as leaders in reform, 
^ ,•< as the above great names will show. 

^ : Now look at the founders of our heretical sects. Joanna 
„„ Southcott was wholly illiterate, a mere washer-woman. 
y^Yv Ann Lee, the foundress of the Shakers, received no educa- 
ff:^ tion, worked in a cotton factory, and was cook in a hospital. 
Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, received no edu 
cation, and Brigham Young very little. Not one of these 
persons were of influence in the world, outside of their own 
deluded followers. 

How is it with the leaders of Adventism? Wm. Miller, the 
founder, was reared in the backwoods, in poverty, and re- 
ceived only the poor advantages of a common district school. 
Except some general reading, this was the extent of his 


Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-Day Adventists' 
party, only secured sufficient education to teach a common 
district school. He was no student of books. In all my 
travels with him, I seldom saw him read half an hour in any 
book. Of the languages or the sciences he knew nothing, 
and little even of common history. Mrs. White received 
no school education, except a few weeks when a child. She, 
like Joanna Southcott, Ann Lee, and Joseph Smith, was 
' wholly illiterate, not knowing the simplest rules of grammar. 
Not one of the leading men in that work ever graduated from 
college or university, and many are illiterate as Mrs. White 
herself. Elder J. N. Andrews, Elder Smith, and one or 
two more, by diligent study and reading out of school, be* 
came well informed men in their line. After Eider White 
came Elders Butler and Haskell as leaders, neither of them 
educated men, nor of half the natural talent of Elder White. 
The present leaders are small men also. Such men are 
poorly prepared to lead out in a great reformation in this 
educated age. Not a man among them has now, or ever 
had, a particle of influence in the world, or any office or 
responsible position in state or nation. How different from 
the great reformers of the past, who often had extensive in- 
fluence for good, not only with the masses, but with th© 
great men and kings of earth. Hence, from whatsoever 
side we view Adventism, it has none of the marks of a gen- 
/ nine reformation sent of God to bless the world. 

Elder A. A. Phelps, for years editor of a First-Day Ad- 
ventist paper says : 

"I watched, and waited, and worked, with patience, 
meekness and loyalty, in hearty co-operation, and with an 
earnest desire to see such unity, enterprise, breadth and 
moral power, as ought to characterize a scriptural and 
heaven-inspired movement. How slowly and reluctantly I 
yielded to the conviction — forced by sad facts and illustra- 


tions that I have not even dared to detail — that I was 
only throwing away my life in stemming such waves of 
discord, indolence, looseness, narrowness, dogmatism and 
spiritual death as I could not overcome." 

Reader, if you are still outside of this spiritual Babylon, 
take warning from those who have been through the mill, 
and stay out. 

Later, 1914. Already strong men among them admit 
that, (1) Mrs. White has made many mistakes in her in- 
spired (?) writings ; (2) Now contradicts what she once 
wrote ; (3) Has copied from many other authors what she 
claims as revelations from God ; (4) Has often been in- 
fluenced by others to write what they wanted to help 
their projects. Time has proved this so clearly that it can 
no longer be denied. Hence her revelations are steadily 
losing influence with their able men. She is now eighty- 
seven years old and is reported as having largely lost her 
mind. The laity, specially in foreign lands, being ignorant 
of all these facts, still regard her as the voice of God to 



I long hesitated about bringing personal matters into this 
book, but could see no way to tell my story without it. 
My experience illustrates the power which error and super- 
stition have over men. I am amazed at myself that I wag 
held there so long, after my better judgment was convinced 
that it was an error. I propose to tell the simple facts, just 
as they were, hit whom they may. Public men become 
public property, and as such their conduct and work should 
be laid open and discussed. This is my reason for criticis- 
ing the course of Elder White and wife, and others. They 
invite criticism by claiming to be reformers, better than 
other people. 

I was born in Kinderhook, Branch county, Mich., Sept. 
22, 1840. 1 had no religious training till I was sixteen. I 
was converted among the Methodists under the labors of 
Rev. Mr. Hazzard, and baptized by him in 1858. I soon 
went to Albion, N. Y., to attend school. Here, in 1859, I 
heard Elder and Mrs. White. He preached on the Sabbath 
question. I was uneducated, and knew but little about the 
Bible. I had no idea of the relation between the Old and 
New Testaments, the law and the gospel, or the difference 
between the Sabbath and the Lord's day. I thought he 
proved that the seventh day was still binding, and that 
there was no authority for keeping Sunday. 

Ai I was anxious to be right, I began keeping Saturday, 



out did not expect to believe any more of their doctrine. 
Of course I attended their meetings on Saturday and worked 
on Sunday. This separated me entirely from other Chris' 
tians, and threw me wholly with the Adventists. I soon 
learned from them that all other churches were Babylon, in 
the dark and under the frown of God. Seventh-Day Ad- 
ventists were the only true people of God. They had ''the 
truth," the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. They 
defended Mr. Miller's work of 1844, believed in the visions 
of Mrs. White, the sleep of the dead, the annihilation of 
the wicked, feet washing, etc. At first these things staggered 
me, and I thought of drawing back; but they explained 
them plausibly and smoothed them over, and said they were 
no test anyway. Having no one to intelligently aid me, I 
began to see things as they did, and in a few weeks came to 
believe the whole system. I was again baptized, as their 
converts from other churches generally are, so as to get 
clean out of Babylon. Persuaded that time was too short, 
I gave up going to school, dropped the study of all else, 
listened to their preaching, devoured their books and studied 
my Bible day and night to sustain these new views. I was 
now an enthusiastic believer, and longed to convert every- 
body to the faith. I had not a doubt that it was the pure 
truth. This is about the experience of all who go with 
them, as I have since learned. 

In May, 1864, 1 was licensed to preach. Soon began with 
Elder Van Horn at Ithaca, Mich. We had good success; 
raised up three companies that year. In 1865 worked in 
Tuscola county, and had excellent success. Was ordained 
by Elder White that year. Up to this date I had not had a 
doubt about the truthfulness of our faith. As I now began 
to see more of Elder White and wife, and the work at head- 
quarters, I learned that there was much trouble with him. 
I saw that he ruled everything, and that all greatly feared 


him. I saw that he was often cross and unreasonable. 
This troubled me a little, but not seriously. In 1866 I was 
sent to Maine with Elder J. N. Andrews, the ablest man 
among them. This was a big thing for me. I threw my- 
self into the work with great enthusiasm, and was very 
happy. Elder Andrews was strong in the faith and very 
radical, and I partook of his spirit. We had excellent suc- 
cess. By this time 1 had become quite a writer, I returned 
to Battle Creek in 1867. At that time there was great 
trouble with Elder White, and many church meetings were 
held to investigate the matter. It was clear to me that he 
was wrong, but Mrs. White sustained him in her ''Testi- 
monies" and severely blamed the church. Elder Andrews 
and a few others proposed to stand up for the right, and 
take the consequences. My sympathies were with them; 
but others feared, and finally all wilted and confessed that 
"we have been blinded by Satan." This was signed by the 
leading ministers, and humbly adopted by the whole church. 
See ''Testimonies," Vol. 1, page 612. This shook my faith 
a good deal, and I began to question Mrs. White's inspira- 
tion. I saw that her revelations always favored Elder 
White and herself. If any dared question their course, they 
soon received a scathing revelation denouncing the wrath of 
God against them. 

About this time several of our able ministers, with quite a 
party in the West, drew off from the body, in opposition to 
Elder White and the visions. They were denounced as 
"rebels," were doomed to perdition, and it was predicted 
that they would soon come to ruin ! But they have con- 
tinued their work for about fifty years, having several 
thousand believers. Their headquarters are at Stanberry, 
Missouri, where they publish two papers, books, etc. They 
have done a good work in exposing the fallacy of Mrs. 
White's inspu^ation. 


But I dared not open my mind to a soul. 1 was only a 
youth, and had little experience. Older and stronger men 
had broken down and confessed. What could I do ? I said 
nothing, but felt terribly. I wished I had never heard of 
the Adventists. Shortly I was back on my field in Maine. 
Busy with my work, preaching our doctrine, and sur- 
rounded with men who firmly believed it, I soon got over 
my doubts. I have since learned that scores of others have 
gone through a similar trial. 

In 1868 I went to Massachusetts. Being away from the 
troubles at headquarters, I got on finely. But in May, 
1869, 1 was in Battle Creek for a month. Things were in 
bad shape. Elder White was in trouble with most of the 
leading men, and they with him. I was well convinced that 
he was the real cause of it all, but Mrs. White sustained 
him, and that settled it. They were God's chosen leaders, 
and must not be criticised or meddled with. I felt sad. I 
was working hard to get men into "the truth," as we called 
it; to persuade them that this was a people free from the 
faults of other churches; then to see such a state of things 
among the leaders disheartened me greatly. So far, I my- 
self had had no trouble with any one, and Elder White had 
been very cordial to me. But I saw then that if I ever 
came to be of any prominence in the work I should have to 
expect the same treatment from him that all of the others 
got. The more I saw of the work, the more objections I 
saw to it. I will not stop to give them here, as I will 
give them together in Chapter V. 

I had been so thoroughly drilled in the Advent doctrines 
that I firmly believed the Bible taught them all. To give 
up the Advent faith was to give up the Bible. So all my 
brethren said, and so I thought. Hence I swallowed my 
doubts and went on. That year I went to Iowa to 
workj where I remained four years, laboring with Eldei 


Butler, who soon became president of their general confer- 
ence. We had good success and raised up several churcheSo 
I finally opened my mind to Elder Butler, and told him my 
fears. I knew these things troubled him as well as myself, 
for we often spoke of them. He helped me some, and again 
I gathered courage and went on, feeling better. Still, I 
came to see each year more and more that somehow the 
thing did not work as I had supposed it would and ought. 
Wherever Elder WTiite and wife went they were always in 
trouble with the brethren, and the best ones, too. I came 
to dread to meet them, or have them come where I was, 
for I knew there would be trouble with some one or some- 
thing, and it never failed of so being. I saw church after 
church split up by them, the best brethren discouraged 
and maddened and driven off, while I was compelled to 
apologize for them continually. For years about this time, 
the main business at all our big meetings was to listen to 
the complaints of Elder White against his brethren. Not a 
leading man escaped — Andrews, Waggoner, Smith, Lough- 
borough, Amadon, Cornell, Aldrich, Walker, and a host of 
others had to take their turn at being broken on the wheel. 
For hours at a time, and times without number, I have sat 
in meel ligs and heard Elder White and wife denounce these 
men, till I felt there was little manhood left in them. It 
violated all my ideas of right and justice, and stirred my 
indignation. Yet, whatever vote was asked by Elder 
White, we all voted it unanimously, I with the rest. Then 
I would go out alone and hate myself for my cowardice, and 
despise my brethren for their weakness. 

Elder and Mrs. White ran and ruled everything with an 
iron hand. Not a nomination to office, not a resolution, not 
an item of business was ever acted upon in business meet- 
ings till all had been first submitted to Elder White for his 
approval. Till years later, we never saw an opposition vote 


on any question, for no one dared to do it. Hence, all official 
voting was only a farce. The will of Elder White settled 
everything. If any one dared to oppose anything, however 
humbly, Elder White or wife quickly squelched him. Long 
years of such training taught that people to let their leaders 
think for them; hence, they are under as complete subjec- 
tion as are the Catholics. 

These, with other things, threw me into doubt and dis- 
couragement, and tempted me to quit the work. I saw 
many an able minister and scores of valuable men leave us 
because they would not stand such treatment. I envied the 
faith and confidence of brethren who went on ignorant of all 
this, supposing that Battle Creek was a little heaven, when, 
in fact, it was as near purgatory as anything I could im- 
agine. Many poor souls have gone there full of faith and 
hope, but have soon gone away infidels. In 1872 I went to 
Minnesota, where I had good success. By this time I had 
written much, and so was well known to all our people. In 
July, 1873, myself and wife went to Colorado to spend a 
few weeks with Elder White and wife, in the mountains. I 
soon found things very unpleasant living in the family. 
Now my turn had come to catch it, but instead of knuckling 
down, as most of the others had, I told the elder my mind 
freely. That brought us into an open rupture. Mrs. White 
heard it all, but said nothing. In a few days she had a long 
written " testimony" for wife and me. It justified her hus- 
band in everything, and placed us as rebels against God, 
with no hope of heaven only by a full surrender to them. 
Wife and I read it over many times with tears and prayers; 
but could see no way to reconcile it with truth. It contained 
many statements which we knew were false. We saw that 
it was dictated by a spirit of retaliation, a determination to 
break our wills or crush us. For awhile we were in great 
perplexity, but still my confidence in much of the doctrine 


and my fear of going wrong held me; but I was perfectly 
miserable for weeks, not knowing what to do. However, I 
preached awhile in Colorado and then went to California, 
where I worked with my hands for three months, trying to 
settle what to do. Elders Butler, Smith, White and others 
wrote to us, and tried to reconcile us to the work. Not 
knowing what else to do, I finally decided to forget all my 
objections, and go along as before. So we confessed to 
Elder \\niite all we could possibly, and he generously for- 
gave us ! But from that on my faith in the inspiration of 
Mrs. White was weak. Elder White was very friendly to 
me again after that. 

Now the Adventists say that I have left them five times, 
and this is one of the five. It is utterly untrue. I simply 
stopped preaching for a few weeks, but did not withdraw 
from the church nor renounce the faith. If this is leaving 
them, then most of their leading men have left them, too, 
for they all have had their periods of trial when they left 
their work awhile. About 1856, Elders J. N. Andrews and 
J. N. Loughborough, who were then the most prominent 
ministers among them, and several other persons, left the 
work and went into business at Waukon, Iowa. Mrs. 
White gave an account of this in "Experience and Views," 
pages 219-222. Elder White and wife went there, and, 
after a long efibrt, brought them back. Mrs. White says: 
"A dissatisfied party had settled in Waukon. * * * 
Brother J. N. Loughborough in discouragement had gone 
to work at his trade. He was just about to purchase land," 
etc. , page 222. These men did just what I did. 

Elder Uriah Smith, by far the ablest man then in their 
ranks, also had his seasons of doubt, when he ceased to work, 
and engaged in secular employments. Hear his own con- 
fession : " That I have had in my experience occasional 
periods of trial, I do not deny. There have been times 


when circumstances seemed very perplexing; when the way 
to harmonize apparently conflicting views did not at once 
appear, and under what have seemed for the time strong prov- 
ocations to withdraw from the work, I have canvassed the 
question how far this could reasonably be done, or how much 
of this work could consistently be surrendered. " Replies 
to Elder Canright, page 107. His own words show that he 
has doubted different parts of the theory, the same as I did. 
For years we were on intimate terms; often traveled and 
labored together. We freely talked over these matters. 
His doubts and trials were very similar to my own. This 
ran through a long period of years, till it was feared that he 
would quit them entirely. His wife was nearly driven to 
insanity over similar trials. Finally they broke down, 
'^confessed" the same as I did once, and now profess to be 
satisfied. He wrote me that he had to indorse Mrs. White's 
visions out of policy. The thing is so unreasonable, thai 
most of them at times are more or less troubled over itj 
just as 1 was. In the language of J. W. Morton, "1 pity 
their delusions, and abominate the spiritual tyranny by 
which they and others are held to the most unscriptural 
dogmas. Even Mr. Smith, for whom, however he may de 
nounce me, I entertain only the most kindly feelings, is in 
a position that calls for tender commiseration. He is ex- 
pected, as the great man of the denomination (for he un- 
doubtedly is by far the ablest man they have), to give a full 
and explicit endorsement to Mrs. White's claims of inspira- 
tion; and yet whoever scans his public utterances on this 
point — especially he who has skill to 'read between the 
lines' — can see that his endorsement is so feeble as to be no 
endorsement at alL Such a position is one in which I would 
not place my worst enemy. He is, in part at least, under 
the heel of a spiritual tyranny. Oh, that Uriah Smith had 
the courage, and the manliness, to assert, before God and 


man, his right to that ' soul liberty ' which is the inherit- 
ance of every child of God ! " 

Elder Geo. I. Butler, who for many years took the place 
of Elder White as leader of the denomination, got into 
trial with his brethren, and, practically, out of the work. 
Till middle life he was a small farmer. Naturally he was 
a humble, good man, with a strong sense of fairness. 
Elder White became jealous of him. Later, Mrs. White 
also turned against him and required a servile submission 
which he would not make. Said when he could not be an 
Adventist, and be a man, then he would be a man, as 
others had decided. Disappointed and soured, under pre- 
text of ill-health, he went off to Florida on a little farm — 
another example of the blighting effect of Adventism. 
He is now doing what I did two or three times, only from 
a different cause. Has he, then, left them ? 

In 1874: Elder White had arranged to have a big debate 
held at Napa City, Cal., between Elder Miles Grant, of 
Boston, Mass., and one of our ministers. Though Elder 
White and wife, Elder Cornell and Elder Loughborough, 
their ablest men, were there, they selected myself to de- 
fend our side, which I did for about a week, while the other 
ministers sat by. I mention this to show the confidence 
they had in me, though I had been in so great a trial but a 
few months before. In 1875 we returned to Michigan. 
Elder Butler was now out with Elder White, who took 
every possible opportunity to snub him; but I was in high 
favor, was sent to attend their state meetings in Vermont, 
Kansas, Ohio and Indiana. With Elder Smith, was sent as 
delegate to the Seventh-Day Baptist General Conference. 
In 1876 I was sent to Minnesota, then to Texas, and so on 
through most of the Southern States, to look after our in- 
terests there. Each year greater responsibilities were laid 
upon me. That year I raised up a large church at Rome, 


New York, and labored over the State. Went with Eldel 
White and wife to Indiana and Illinois, and was then sent 
to Kansas to hold a debate, and to Missouri for the same 
purpose. This year 1 was elected a member of the General 
Conference Committee of three, with Elder White and Elder 
Haskell, and continued on the committee two years. It is 
the highest official authority in the denomination. 

In 18Y7 I went to New England, where I raised up two 
churches and did other work. I spent 1878 in general work 
in various States, as Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, 
Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Colorado, and Ohio. In the 
fall was president of the Ohio conference. In 1879 labored 
in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee. At 
the general conference at Battle Creek in the fall, things 
were in a bad shape. Elder White was cross, and Mrs. 
White bore down heavy on several ministers. Harshness, 
fault-finding and trials were the order of the day. I felt 
that there was very little of the spirit of Christ present. I 
got away as quickly as possible. I saw more and more 
clearly that a spirit of oppression, criticism, distrust and 
dissension was the result of our work, instead of meekness, 
gentleness, and love among brethren. For the next whole 
year these feelings grew upon me, till I began to fear we 
were doing more harm than good. My work called me 
among old churches, where I could see the fruit of it. Gen- 
erally they were cold and dead, backslidden, or in a quarrel, 
or nearly extinct, where once they had been large and flour- 
ishing churches. I lost heart to raise up more churches to 
go in the same way. One day I would decide to quit them 
entirely, and the next day I would resolve to go on and do 
the best I could. I never sufiered more mental anguish in 
my life. I labored that year in New Yorkj Pennsylvania, 
Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. 
In the fall of 1880 1 resolved to leave the Adventists, and, 


if I could, go with some other church. I was president of 
the Ohio conference. Our annual state meeting was at 
Clyde, Ohio. Elder and Mrs. White were there. My 
mind was made up to leave them as soon as the meeting was 
over. Against my protest they re-elected me president. 
Mrs. White urged it. Said I was just the man for the 
place; yet her special claim is to be able to reveal the hidden 
wrongs in the church. Here was an important matter. 
Why did she not have a revelation about it ? No, I was 
all right so far as she knew. The next week I resigned, 
went east, and wrote Elder White that I would go with 
them no longer. Then she sent me a long written revelation, 
denouncing me as a child of hell, and one of the wickedest 
of men, though only two weeks before she thought me fit to 
be president of a conference! 

For three months I taught elocution. 1 knew not what 
to do. I talked with ministers of other churches, but they 
did not seem to know how to help me. I could settle on 
nothing. I held on to my Christianity and love for Christ 
and the Bible, and preached and worked as I had oppor- 
tunity. I was glad I had decided to leave the Adventists, 
and felt much better. Finally I met my present wife, who 
was an Adventist. Then I had a long talk with Elder 
Butler, Elder White, Mrs. White and others, and was per- 
suaded that things were not as I had imagined. They said 
I was in the dark, led by Satan, and would go to ruin. All 
the influence of old friends, associations, habits and long 
cultivated ideas came up and were too strong for my better 
judgment. I yielded, and resolved again to live and die with 
them. In my judgment and conscience I was ashamed of the 
surrender I had made, yet I tried to feel right and go on. 


Early in 1881 I went with Elder White to New York. 
By this time he had lost the leadership of the people. 


Elders Butler and Haskell had taken his place, and henw 
he was very hostile to them, working against them, and 
planning all the while to get them out and get back in again 
himself. But the people had largely lost confidence in him 
as a leader. He wished me to work with him against them, 
saying that we would then be on the General Conference 
Committee together. He had good grounds to oppose 
Haskell, who was always a crafty, underhanded man. 
Elder White wrote me thus: — "February 11, 1881: I wish 
Elder Haskell were an open, frank man, so I need not 
watch him." Again:— "Battle Creek, Mich., May 24, 
1881: * * * Elders Butler and Haskell have had an 
influence over her [his wife] that I hope to see broken. It 
has nearly ruined her. These men must not be suffered by 
our people to do as they have done. * ^ * j want you 
to unite with me. * * It is time there was a change in 
the offices of the General Conference. I trust that if we 
are true and faithful, the Lord will be pleased that we 
should constitute two of that board." 

I could give much more to show how little confidence the 
leading men had in each other. I wrote Elder White that 
I could not unite with him nor work with him. July 13, 
1881, he wrote me again: "I have repeatedly abused you, 
and if you go to destruction, where many, to say the least, 
are willing you should go, I should ever feel that I had 
taken a part in your destruction. * * * I do not see 
how any man can labor with me." Soon after this he died. 
I have no doubt that Elder White believed in the Advent 
doctrine, and persuaded himself that he w^as called of God 
to bo a leader. He had some excellent qualities, and doubt- 
less meant to be a Christian, but his strong desire to rule 
and run everything, together with an irritable temper, kept 
him always in trouble with some one. No one could work 
with him long in peace. Elder Butler told me that hia 


death was providential to save the body from a rupture. 
Mrs. White was so offended at Butler, that she would haye 
no communication with him for a long while. All these 
things helped me to see that I was being led by selfish, am. 
bitious men, who were poor samples of religious reformers. 

That year I labored in Canada, Vermont, Maine, New 
England, and Michigan, and was elected member of the 
State Executive Committee of Michigan that fall. I worked 
another year in Michigan. But I was unhappy ; I could 
not get over my doubts; I had no heart in the work. Sev- 
eral leading ministers in the State felt about the same. I 
then decided to quietly drop out of the ministry and go to 
farming. This I did for two years, but retained my mem- 
bership with the church and worked right along with them. 
But I was in purgatory all the time, trying to believe what 
I could not. Yet I was not settled on any other church, 
and feared I might go wrong, and so stood still. In the 
fall of 1884, Elder Buller, my old friend, and now at the 
head of the Advent work, made a great effort to get me 
reconciled and back at work again. He wrote me several 
times, to which I made no answer. Finally he telegraphed 
me, and paid my fare to a camp-meeting. Here 1 met old 
friends and associations, tried to see things as favorable as 
possible, heard explanations, etc. , etc. , till at last I yielded 
again. I was sick of an undecided position. I thought I 
could do some good here anyway; all my friends were here-, 
I believed much of the doctrine still, and I might go to ruin 
if I left them, etc. Now I resolved to swallow all my 
doubts, believe the whole thing anyway, and stay with them 
for better or for worse. So I made a strong confession, of 
which I was ashamed before it was cold. 

Was I satisfied ? No. Deep in my heart I was ashamed 
of myself, but tried to feel that it was not so. But soon I 
felt better, because I had decided. Gradually my faith cam« 


back, till I again really felt strong in the whole doctrine, and 
had no idea I should ever leave it again. In a few weeks I 
was sent to attend large meetings in Pennsylvania, New 
York, Minnesota, Iowa, and New England; assisted in re- 
vival meetings in Battle Creek; was appointed with Elder 
Butler to lecture before the ministers on how to labor suc- 
cessfully; conducted a similar course in the Academy at 
South Lancaster, Mass. ; was at the state meetings in New 
York, Michigan, Indiana and Ohio. In the spring of 1886 
was appointed to lecture before the theological class in the 
Battle Creek College, and Associate Editor of the Sickle. 

By my urgent appeal, an effort was made to bring up our 
ministers to some plan of study in which they are very 
deficient. I was on the committee to arrange this. I selected 
the course of studies and framed all the questions, by which 
they were to be examined. I was then furnished a short- 
hand reporter, and in the summer was sent to ten different 
states, namely, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Kansas, Colorado, 
Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Dakota, and Michigan, to at- 
tend their state conferences, examine their ministers, report 
their meetings for the daily press, etc., and this I did. In 
our conflict with the Disciples at Des Moines, Iowa, it was 
agreed that each side should select a representative man and 
hold a debate on the Sabbath question. They selected Pro- 
fessor D. R. Dungan, president of Drake University. Our 
people selected me. We expected a notable time, and I 
made every possible effort to be ready. That preparation 
did much to convince me of the unsoundness of some of our 
positions on the covenants, the two laws, etc. In our Gen- 
eral Conference that fall, a sharp division occurred between 
our leading men over the law in Galatians. One party held 
it was the ceremonial law, the other the moral law — a square 
contradiction. After a long and warm discussion the con« 
ference closed, each party more confident than before. 


There was also much disagreement over other points of doc- 
trine, and a good deal of warm party feeling. This, with 
other things, brought up my old feelings of doubt, and de- 
cided me that it was time for me now to examine and 
think for myself, and not be led nor intimidated by men 
who could not agree among themselves. 

I used every minute I could get for several weeks, care- 
fully and prayerfully examining all the evidence on the 
Sabbath, the law, the sanctuary, the visions, etc. , till I had 
not a doubt left that the Seventh-Day Advent faith was a 
delusion. Then I laid the matter before the leading men at 
Battle Creek, resigned all the positions I held, and asked to 
be dismissed from the church. This was granted February 
IT, 1887. That was the first and only time I ever withdrew 
from the church, nor was any charge ever made against me 
during the twenty-eight years I was with them. As soon 
as I took my stand firmly, to be a free man and think for 
myself, a great burden, which I had carried all these years, 
rolled off*. I felt like a new man. At last I was out of 
bondage. 1 have never for a moment regretted the step I 

They now report that I left them four or five times 
before, and then went back. This is entirely untrue. From 
the time I joined them, in 1859, till I withdrew, in 1887, 
I remained in good standing in that church. After I w^as 
licensed to preach in 1861, my credentials were renewed 
each year except one, when I was farming and did not ask 
for them. Till I left them, in 1887, I never preached nor 
wrote against them once; nor did I unite with any other 
church, nor teach any doctrine contrary to theirs. Let 
them deny any of these statements if they can. They say I 
may yet return to them. They know better. The moment 
I took my stand decidedly, that matter was settled forever. 
The fact that I remained with them under all these trials fol 


twenty-eight years, shows I was not a vacillating man, as 
they now try to think. 


I am often asked why I did not leave them sooner ? Why 
it took me so long to find that it was an error ? Then the 
Adventists affirm that I must have been dishonest while 
with them, or I am dishonest now. They say I am an 
apostate now, because I left them and joined the Baptists. 
My answer is this: If to change one's opinion and join another 
church makes one an apostate, then more than half their 
members are apostates, for they have come from other 
churches to join the Adventists. Again, they circulate 
and commend highly a book called "Fifty Years in Rome," 
written by a man who was many years a learned priest in 
the Roman church. They say that his high standing and 
long experience in that church makes his book invaluable. 
But they say that the fact that I was with them in high 
standing so long, and now have left them, only proves that 
I am a hypocrite! 

Any candid man can see the inconsistency of their posi- 
tions. I united with the Adventists when I was a mere 
boy, uneducated, with no knowledge of the Bible, of history, 
or of other churches. I went into it through ignorance. 
For years my zeal for that faith, and my unbounded confi- 
dence in its leaders, blinded me to their errors. But, as I 
grew older, read my Bible more, read history, met with 
other churches, heard sermons and read books against Ad- 
ventism, became better acquainted with our leaders, with 
the inside workings of the church, learned more about its 
unfavorable origin, the many mistakes we had made, saw 
the fruit of it in old churches, on families and society, got 
hold of the early writings of Mrs. White and others; gradu- 
sdly I began to see that Adventism was not just what I had 


first supposed it to be. When I embraced it in 1859, 
Seventh-Day Adventism was only fourteen years old, the 
believers were few, and it was comparatively untried. But 
when Adventism was twenty-five years older, ten times as 
large, and had fully developed its spirit and shown its fruits, 
when I had had the education, observation and experience 
of a quarter of a century, I think my judgment in the 
matter ought to be worth more than when I embraced it as 
a green boy. 

Again, it was only during the last few years that I gained 
possession of early Advent documents, which show how 
they now deny and contradict what they once taught. 
These are now either suppressed or kept out of sight, so that 
not one in a thousand of them knows or will believe that 
they ever existed. My doubts of the system did not come 
to me all at once and clearly. It was well known that for 
the last dozen years I was with them, I was greatly troubled 
over these things. Gradu ally, year by year, the evidence 
accumulated, till at last it overbalanced the doctrine, and 
then reluctantly and sorrowfully I had to abandon and re- 
nounce it. God pity the soul that has to go through what 
I did to be honest to his convictions of right. 


Notwithstanding it was well known to all that I frequently 
had serious doubts about their faith, yet, as soon as I took 
hold with them again, each time they immediately put me 
forward and set me at the most important work. Elder Butler 
says: "He doubtless would have been [elected to important 
office] had he not proved himself unreliable in so many in- 
stances. His ability would have justified it. " — Review and 
Hei'old Extra, Nov. 22, 1887. Suppose, now, that I had been 
an office-seeking man, caring more for place and position than 
for truth and conscience, what would I have done? I 


would have gone right along, pretending to be full in faith 
and in harmony with them. But instead of this, time and 
again, I went directly to their influential men, Elders White, 
Butler, Haskell, etc., and told them my doubts. Let can- 
did men judge of my motives. 

The day I left them I held the following positions: Was 
teacher of theology in their college at Battle Creek, where I 
had a class of nearly two hundred of their best young peo- 
ple; was associate editor of the Gospel SicJcle; was writing 
the lessons for all their Sabbath Schools throughout the 
world; had the charge of some eighteen churches in Michi- 
gan; was member of the Executive Committee of the Inter- 
national Sabbath School Association; member of the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Michigan State Sabbath School Asso- 
ciation; and at the last session of the general conference 
was chairman of the International Sabbath School Associa- 
tion, and was on nine different committees, several of them 
the most important in the conference, as the one on dis- 
tribution of laborers over all the world, the theological 
committee, the one on camp meetings, on a special course 
of study in our college, on the improvement of the ministry, 
etc. This shows what they thought of my ability. I had 
just gotten out a new pamphlet, "Critical Notes," of which 
they printed an edition of 10,000 after I left them. Others 
of my works they have revised, left my name off", and use 
them still. Why reprint mine after I have left them and 
renounced what they teach ? They now say that my writ- 
ings are cheap and worthless. But while I was with them 
they published over twenty different productions of mine, and 
circulated hundreds of thousands of them, translated several 
of them into other languages, and paid me hundreds of dol- 
lars for them. Strange that all at once 1 have become so 
imbecile, and my writings so worthless. Any one can see 
the animus of all this. 


Elder Smith, in Replies to Canright, page 25, says I left 
them at a time when my withdrawal embarrassed them more 
than it would have done at any other time. This confesses 
that I was becoming more and more useful to them, and all 
know that I was. At the time I left I was getting higher 
pay than ever before, and was on friendly terms with all. 
All the leading men, as Butler, Haskell, Smith, etc., were 
my warm personal friends, ready to do all in their power to 
assist me. Had I desired office, or better position, all I had 
to do was to go right along without wavering, and positions 
would come to me faster than I could fill them. But if I 
left them, where could I go? What could I do? How 
even make a living ? I took this all in, and it required all 
the courage and faith in God I could master to take the 

It cost me a terrible struggle and a great sacrifice, for in 
doing it I had to leave all my life-long friends, the cherished 
hopes of my youth, the whole work of my life, all the means 
of my support, every honorable position I held, and bring 
upon myself reproach, hatred and persecution. I had to 
begin life anew, among strangers, with untried methods, un- 
certain where to go or what to do. No one who has not tried 
it can ever begin to realize the fearful struggle it requires. 
It is the dread of all this which holds many with them who 
are yet dissatisfied where they are. I know that this is so, 
Por many have confessed it to me, and yet remained where 
ihey were. Anyone of candor and fairness can see readily 
that self-interest and personal ambition would have held me 
with them. Yet, as soon as I did leave them, though I 
went out quietly and peaceably, and let them entirely alone, 
and even spoke favorably of them, they immediately attrib- 
uted to me all sorts of evil motives, base sins, and ambitious 
designs. They seemed to feel it a sacred duty to blast my 
reputation, and destroy my influence, if possible. "Apo&- 


tate " was the epithet all applied to me. I was compared 
to Baalam, to Kora, Dathan and Abiraui, to Judas, Demas, 
and a whole list of evil characters. Not one honest or 
worthy motive was granted me. The meanest and wick- 
edest reports were circulated as to what I had done or said 
— things that I would despise even to think of. Yet all 
were eagerly accepted and believed as undoubted truth. 
But I expected it, for it is the way all are treated who 
dare to leave them and give a reason for it. 

During the twenty years now since I left them, they have 
had spies constantly on my track, who have watched and 
reported the least thing I have said or done, to torture it 
into evil, if possible. This they circulate to the ends of the 
earth, and it comes back to me in newspapers and letters. 
They have issued four different publications against me, and 
Mrs. White, in her last " revelation," has devoted three ar- 
ticles to myself ! Yet I don't amount to anything ; never 
did ! " Sour grapes," you see. It has been widely reported 
that I was smitten with a terrible disease, had broken up 
my church, been expelled from the denomination, and 
more yet, concerning all which the Lord judge between us. 
The pastors of all the churches here, and public men of the 
place have had to make written statements to meet these 
attacks in distant states. Sometimes this has seemed hard 
to bear, but knowing that I was right, I have had grace 
and patience to keep steadily at my work, and leave the 
rest with God and my friends. 

I am in constant receipt of letters from all parts of the 
country, saying that the Adventists afRrm that I have asked 
to be taken back among them ! They will report it till I 
die, and long after. This book shall be my answer. They 
are so certain that the curse of God will follow all who 
leave them, or that they will become infidels, or return to 
them, that they cannot be reconciled to have it otherwise. 


"Glenwood Springs, Colo., March 29, 1889. 
D. M. Canright, Otsego, Mich.: 

My Dear Friend and Brother: — If the lightning's shiver- 
ing crash had torn my scalp loose from my head, I would 
not have been more surprised than I was to-day by having 
placed in my hands your pamphlet entitled '^The Jewish 
Sabbath. " I have read after you for years, sold your valu- 
able works, and preached the ''Third Angel's Message." 
Now, 1 wish to ask you, how do our people treat you? To 
my knowledge you were a great favorite, and quoted oftener 
than any standing near the head. Do they go back on you 
as hard as they did on Snook ? I suppose that your great 
research and life-long study of the subject in hand goes for 
nothing with them, and that you are classed among the 
fallen angels. F. A. B." 

ordained a baptist minister. 

April 19, 1887, at Otsego, Mich., where I had lived for 
eight years, I was ordained as a minister of the Regular 
Baptist Church, by an exceptionally large council, composed 
of several of the ablest ministers of the state. The Otsego 
Union of that date says: "Regularly appointed delegates 
were present from Baptist churches in Grand Rapids, Kala- 
mazoo, Plainwell, Three Rivers, White Pigeon, Allegan, 
Battle Creek, Paw Paw, Hickory Corners, Prairieville and 
Otsego. Rev. A. E. Mather, D.D., of Battle Creek, was 
elected moderator of the council, and Rev. T. M. Shanafelt, 
D. D. , of Three Rivers, secretary. The order of exercises 
was as follows: Reading of the Scriptures, by Rev. H. A. 
Rose, of Kalamazoo; prayer, by Rev. D. Mulhern, D.D., of 
Grand Rapids; ordination sermon, by Rev. Kendall Brooks, 
D.D., President of Kalamazoo College; prayer of ordina- 
tion, by Rev. M. W. Haynes, of Kalamazoo, with laying on 


of hands by Rev. H. B. Taft, of White Pigeon, Rev. E. A. 
Gay, of Allegan, and Rev. H. A. Rose, of Kalamazoo; 
hand of fellowship, by Rev. T. F. Babcock, of Prairieville; 
charge to the pastor, by Rev. L. B. Fish, of Paw Paw; 
charge to the church, by Rev. I. Butterfield, of Grand 

* 'Rev. D. M. Canright has thus been fully recognized by a 
large and representative council as a regular Baptist minis- 
ter, and pastor of the Baptist church in Otsego." 

I have never regretted leaving the Adventists, nor for one 
moment had the shghtest desire to return. 


Largely, people are drawn into the Seventh-Day doctrine 
through fear^ fear of being damned if they refuse. Once 
in, they try to feel happy, but very few really are. With a 
large class, the more intelligent ones, there are so many 
doubts and fears, such a sensible want of something which 
they do not find, that they are unhappy. Many of their 
ministers have gone through the same trials that I have, 
and scores have left them, as I did, while others have fixed 
it up and remained with them. Elder White himself had 
doubts. Mrs. White says of him: "He should make it a 
rule not to talk unbelief or discouragement. " "My husband 
has cherished this darkness so long by living over the un- 
happy past, that he has but little power to control his mind 
when dwelling upon these things." Testimonies, Yol. HI, 
pages 96, 97. Mrs. White herself, as we might expect, is 
troubled with infidelity. She says: **In the night I have 
awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall 
become an infidel.'" Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. Near- 
ly all their prominent ministers had their times of trial, the 
same as I did, when they ceased preaching and went at 
other work, as we have seen. 

I will quote a few words from letters received: "I have 
had many blue times in my experience because of these 
doubts. * * Once I decided that I must follow the convic- 
tions of my own judgment in these things; but when the 
time came the pressure was so strong that I tried to convince 
myself that I was wrong. * * The facts are, I am just mis- 



erable. * * It seems like a terrible thing to take a course 
that will cause all the cherished friends of this world to look 
upon you as one fallen from grace; and here I am, bound 
with these chains." Another writes; " It seems to me that 
the views held by Seventh-Day Adventists are so burden- 
some that they will crush me. They are a yoke of bondage 
which I cannot stand up under. Still I do want to be 
right." Another minister, D. H. Lamson, writes: "How 
am I straightened, while the fetters are being forged for 
most unwilling limbs! * * What distress we are in as a peo- 
ple ! how miserable ! and is there no relief ?" And still 
another talented minister, W. C. Gage, writes me: ''Our 
ministers, and people as well, are growing to be a denomi- 
nation of hypocrites, by a slavish fear of expressing an hon- 
est belief. * * I am sick and disheartened. * * The basis of 
confidence is gone, and I shall only await the outcome of 
the matter." Still another, Uriah Smith, writes: "There is 
a fear, on the part of the powers that be, of free thought and 
free discussion. So far as this is the case, it is a shame and 
disgrace to us." And yet these brethren patch up the 
matter some way, and go right on as though nothing were 
wrong. I know how to pity them, for I myself have passed 
through precisely the same experience. And another writes: 
" I wish I had never heard the Advent doctrine preached. 
Previous to that, I know that I did enjoy the blessing of 
God. I was not troubled about doctrine. * * 1 think I then 
had some influence for good over others, but I fear my 
change of faith had a bad influence over my children." 
Strange to say, these are the very men who now denounce 
me the worst because I had the courage of my convictions, 
while they haven't. 

These are fair samples of how scores among them feel, 
from men in leading positions, to the humblest in the church. 
Largely they keep it to themselves, but occasionally it will 


out. Many of them almost get out, and then fall back, to 
linger along in bondage all the rest of their lives. ''But it 
these persons are in such bondage, why not break loose, and 
be free ? Who would harm them ?" Be it remembered that 
there is a bondage worse than African slavery — the bondage 
of religious tyranny and superstition. I was held there for 
years, and know its powder. 

Milton F. Gow^ell, Chicago, gives so true a picture of 
Advent experience, that I quote him in a letter to me. 1 
was often at his father's house, in Portland, Me. , when he 
was a boy. He says: "My recollections of those days are 
full of the terrors of law, prophetic charts, Mrs. White's 
visions, the Sabbath, Sabbath, Sabbath, health reform, 
bloomer dresses, and a gi'eat zeal for being industrious on 
Sunday, and little or nothing of Christ. All the doing was 
indelibly impressed on my mind as a boy, but the believing 
on Christ for salvation, and resting in his finished work, I 
have no remembrance of whatever. How many there are 
that join the Seventh-Day Adventists utterly unsaved, 
knowing nothing of the grace of God, hearing always barely 
the law. I joined them at the age of fourteen, under con- 
viction, guilty before God, but unsaved, though I was bap- 
tized and received into the church as a Sahbath keeper. I 
received no peace, no rest, till I entered into rest by believ- 
ing about three and a half years ago; saved from the border- 
land of infidelity." This is just the impression which all 
the children of that people are receiving — cold legalism. 
While this young man was finally saved from infidelity, 
hundreds of them are not, as I well know. 


It is nothing new for men to leave a party, good or bad; 
but so large a number of prominent persons have left the 
Adventists as to excite surprise. It is clear that there must 


be something wrong in the system itself. First, according 
to the best of my judgment, from one- third to one-half of 
all who begin the observance of the Sabbath, sooner or later 
abandon it. 

At diflerent times large numbers have left them, mostly 
on account of Mrs. White's visions. We will name a few 
of the ministers who have departed from them: J. B Cook 
and T. M. Preble, the pioneers who started the movement, 
both renounced it; O. K. L. Crozier, Ann Arbor, Mich., 
has renounced the Sabbath; Elder B. F. Snook, the leading 
man in Iowa, is now a Universalist; Elder W. H. Brinker- 
hoof, of Iowa, has renounced the faith; Elder Moses Hull, 
the ablest speaker they ever had, is now a Spiritualist, and 
Elder Shortridge, a minister of much talent, has also gone 
the same way; Elders Hall and Stephenson, at the time 
very prominent in the work, went to the Age-to-Come party; 
C. B. Raynolds, of New York, has become a noted bias- 
phemer; Elder H. C. Blanchard, Avilla, Mo., renounced 
the doctrine; ditto T. J. Butler, of the same State; Elder L. 
L. Howard, Maine, H. F. Haynes, New Hampshire, left 
them; Nathan Fuller, Wellsville, N. Y., became a libertine; 
M. B. Czechowski went to Europe and died in disgrace; H. 
F. Case, Elder Cranmer and Philip Strong, all of Michigan, 
left them. 

Elder J. B. Frisbie, their pioneer and most eflScient 
preacher for years in Michigan, finally left them. Dr. Lee, 
of Minnesota, who inaugurated the work among the Swedes, 
now opposes them. Elder A. B. Oyen, missionary to Eu- 
rope, and editor of their Danish paper, has renounced the 
faith. Living right at the head of the work for many years, 
he had the best of opportunity to know all about its work- 
ings. Elder D. B. Oviatt, for many years president of the 
Pennsylvania Conference, renounced the faith, and is now a 
Baptist minister. 


So Elder Rosquist and Elder Whitelaw, both of Minne- 
sota, have recently left them and gone to the Baptists. 
Other ministers of the West have also' gone over to the 
Baptists. C. A. Russell, Otsego, Mich., an excellent man, 
once preached that doctrine with me, but is now a Metho- 
dist. H. E. Carver, H. C. Blanchard, J. W. Cassady, A. C. 
Long, Jacob Brinkerhoof, J. C. Day, H. W. Ball, Good- 
enough, Bunch, and others, once members of that church, 
have written against it. Elder Hiram Edson and Elder S. 
W. Rhodes, noted pioneers in the work, died confirmed 
cranks, and a trial to the church. The sad example of sev- 
eral of their leading ministers who have been guilty of 
adultery, proves that their church has nothing to boast of 
over other churches in the puritv of its ministers and mem- 


They have been very unfortunate in their college profes- 
sors. Professor S. S. Brownsburger, the first Principal of 
their College at Battle Creek, Mich. , which position he occu- 
pied for years, and then filled the same position in their 
college in Cahfornia, is now wholly disconnected from the 
work. Elder W. H. Littlejohn, who next stood at the head 
of the college, was expelled from the church and fell into 
doubts. Next came Professor A. McLearn as head of the 
college. He has renounced the faith, and now opposes them 
strongly. Professor Vesey, a learned teacher in that col- 
lege, has forsaken the faith. Professor C. C. Ramsy, born 
in that faith, was professor of mathematics in the Battle 
Creek college for three years; then filled the same place for 
three years in their college in California; then was called to 
take charge of their academy in the East, which he did for 
three years more. He was editor of their educational jour- 
nal, prominent in Sabbath School work, and many other 
ways. He has renounced that faith, but remains an earnest 


Christian. Others of their teachers of lesser note have also 
left them. What is the cause of such results ? There must 
be something wrong. 


They have been equally unfortunate with their physicians 
in their sanitarium at Battle Creek. Dr. H. S. Ley, an 
excellent man, was the first physician-in-chief. He left the 
institution in a trial, and was out of the work for years. 
Dr. Wm. Russell, a talented doctor, came next. What he 
there saw of Adventism made him an infidel, and he was 
dismissed. Next, I believe, came Dr. M. G. Kellogg. The 
treatment he received drove him into scepticism for years. 
Then came Dr. Sprague and Dr. Farfield, both of whom 
renounced the faith, and, I believe, are sceptical now. Mrs. 
Lamson and Miss Fellows, both matrons of the sanitarium, 
lost faith in the doctrine. Dr. Smith, brought up in the 
faith, renounced it. Here again we see that education unfits 
men for Adventism. I am not acquainted witK another 
church which has lost so large a proportion of its most 
prominent men. Every year, nearly, so far, more or less 
have gone away from them, till they have lost more talent 
than now remains with them. 


A strong argument with Adventists is, that most of those 
who leave them become infidels, as all know. But, after 
long watching, I became satisfied that it is Adventism which 
has made them infidels. Look at Romanism. Wherever it has 
had sway a while, it filled the land with infidels. Go among 
the Mormons at Salt Lake. Large numbers of their chil- 
dren are becoming infidels. The natural rebound from fanat- 
icism and superstition is into infidelity and scepticism. 
Right here in Otsego we have several infidels, the grown-up 


children of Adventists. I know them and meet them all 
over the country, and their numbers are increasing. I feei 
sure that the ripe fruit of Adventism in the years to come 
will be a generation of doubters. 


Seventh-Day Adventists claim to be raised up of God, to 
reform the church of to-day. They claim to be purer, more 
spiritual, and on a higher plane than other Christians. All 
other churches are Babylon and apostates, while they are 
the chosen saints. But now, after their church has had 
only fifty years trial, and hence is still small and young, and 
so ought to be better than older and larger churches, I can 
quote confessions from their own writers, proving that they 
are as worldly, backslidden and corrupt as they make out 
other churches to be. I will give a few. 

Elder G. I. Butler, in the Advent Review^ May 10, 1887, 
says: "A terrible stupor like that which enveloped the dis 
ciples in the Saviour's agony in the garden, seems to hang 
over the mass of our people." Mrs. White, in Testimonies, 
Vol. I, says: "The Spirit of the Lord has been dying away 
from the church," page 113; "The churches have nearly lost 
their spirituality and faith," page 119; "I saw the dreadful 
fact that God's people were conformed to the world with no 
distinction, except in name," page 133; "Covetousness, 
selfishness, love of money, and love of the world, are all 
through the ranks of Sabbath-keepers," page 140; ^^ Vital 
godliness is lacking," page 153; "There is but little love for 
one another. A selfish spirit is manifest. Discourage- 
ment has come upon the church," page 166; "Spirituality 
and devotion are rare," page 469. Many of them are not 
even honest. She says: "As I saw the spirit of defrauding, 
of over-reaching, of meanness, even among some professed 
Sabbath-keepers, I cried out in anguish," page 480; ''There 


is but little praying. In fact, prayer is almost obsolete," 
page 56G; "Not one in twenty of those who have a good 
standing with Seventh-Day Adventists, is living out the 
self-sacrificing principles of the word of God," page 632. 
Of- the Battle Creek church she says: "I can select family 
after family of children in this house, every one of whom is 
as corrupt as hell itself . " * 'Right here in this church cor- 
ruption is teeming on every hand," Vol. II, pages 360, 361; 
"Sin and vice exist in Sabbath-keeping families," page 391; 
"We have a dwarfed and defective ministry," Vol. IV, page 
Ml. In Testimony, No. 33, just published, Mrs. White 
says: "There is a deplorable lack of spirituality among our 
people. * * There has been a spirit of self-sufficiency, 
and a disposition to strive for position and supremacy. I 
have seen that self-glorification was becoming common 
among Seventh-Day Adventists," pages 255, 256. Thus as 
they grow older, they have to confess to all the weaknesses, 
and short-comings which they have so eagerly charged 
against other churches. 

I could quote whole pages of such confessions as these 
from Mrs. White and their leading men. They are comv 
pelled to say it. It is common in their camp-meetings to 
see half their members forward as backsliders. Their 
preaching is largely scolding their members for their cold- 
ness. In fact, the thing is a practical failure in whatever 
way you look at it. Are they any better, any more 
spiritual, than the regular churches which they denounce 
so ? No, as the above shows. After being well acquainted 
with both, I say confidently that there is as much devotion 
and spirituality among the Evangelical churches as among 

If, then, these things in the other churches prove that 

they are Babylon, they prove the same of the Advent 

church, too.* 

* See Appendix A. 



Every little while^ from the days of Christ till now, in- 
aividuals, and often large sects, have arisen, proclaiming 
tne Second Advent at hand and themselves the God-appointed 
messengers to warn the world. Right on this point Jesus 
warned his church: *'Take heed that no man deceive you. 
*^ * * The end is not yet." Matt. 24: 4-6. Yet right 
away it was said that Jesus would come before John should 
die. John 21: 23. The Thessalonians had to be corrected 
by Paul for expecting the Advent immediately at hand. 
a. Thess. 2: 1-8. 

In the middle of the second century arose the Montanists. 
The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: ''Ecstatic visions 
announcing the approach of the Second Advent of Christ 
* * * were set forth as divine revelations." Art. Mon- 
tanism. Like Seventh-Day Adventists, they adopted a 
severe discipline — condemned the wearing of ornaments, in- 
tercourse with the world, etc. They created a great sensa- 
tion, obtained a numerous following, and flourished for a 
century or more, 


The following is from the "History of the Christian 
Church," by M. Renter, D.D., Century 10, Chapter 2, 
pages 202, 203: "Among the numerous opinions, how- 
ever, which disgraced the Latin church and produced from 
time to time such violent agitations, none occasioned such 
laiiversal panic, nor such dreadful impressions of terror 



or dismay, as a notion that prevailed during this [tenth] 
century of the immediate approach of the day of judg- 
ment." * 'Public and private buildings were suffered to 
decay, and were even pulled down, from an opinion that 
they were no longer of any use, since the dissolution of all 
things was at hand." 

The Fifth-Monarchy men of England, about 1660, "be- 
lieved that the time was near at hand when, to the four 
great monarchies of Daniel's prophetic vision, was to suc- 
ceed the fifth, which was to break in pieces all others, and 
to ' stand forever.' " Johnson's Encyclopedia, article Fifth- 
Monarchy Men. They undertook to set up the kingdom by 
overturning the English government. 

The Irvingites of England ' 'declare the speedy coming of 
Christ;" have "prophets," "revelations," "tongues," "gifts," 
etc. They have gathered large congregations and are 
spreading over the world. 

Swedenborg, A.nn Lee, Joanna Southcott, Joe Smith, etc. , 
all made the speedy advent of Christ the ground-work of 
their systems, as is well known. Hence, movements of this 
kind are nothing new. 

Seventh-Day Adventism originated in the well known 
niovement of William Miller, who set the time for the end 
of the world in 1843-4. They claim now that Mr. Miller's 
move was right, and in the providence of God. They claim 
to be simply carrying on the same work which he began. 
In all their books and sermons they point to 1844 as their 
origin, and endorse the work of the Millerites in 1843 and 
1844. The following from Mrs. White will settle the point: 

"I have seen that the 1843 chart was directed by the 
hand of the Lord, and that it should not be altered; that the 
figures were as he wanted them; that his hand was over and 
hid a mistake in some of the figures." Early Writings, page 
64. God helped them make the mistake ! "I saw that God 


was in the proclamation of the time in 1 843. " Spiritual Gifts, 
Vol. I., page 133. So God wanted them to set that time I 
" I saw that they were correct in their reckoning of the pro- 
phetic periods; prophetic time closed in 1844." Page 107. 
Again: "The Advent movement of 1840-44 was a glorious 
manifestation of the power of God." Great Controversy, 
Vol. IV., page 429. Elder White says: " We hold that the 
great movement upon the Second Advent question, which 
commenced with the writings and public lectures of William 
Miller, has been, in its leading features, in fulfillment of 
prophecy. Consistently with this view, we also hold that 
in the providence of God, Mr. Miller was raised up to do a 
specific work." Life of Miller, page 6. So it will be seen 
that Seventh-Day Adventists still believe in and defend the 
Millerite movements of 1843 and 1844. Indeed, they claim 
that all other churches who did not accept and endorse Mil- 
ler's work were rejected of God on this account. Thus Mrs. 
White: "As the churches refused to receive the first angel's 
message [Miller's work], they rejected the light from heaven 
and fell from the favor of God." Early Writings, page 101. 

Here, then, we have the origin of Seventh-Day Advent- 
ism, the fountain from which it flowed. As a stream will 
be like its fountain, let us examine it. Elder and Mrs. 
White, Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, Holt, Edson, and 
all the founders of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church were 
in the movement of Miller, and helped in setting and preach- 
ing the time in 1843, 1844, and carried the Advent work 
right on afterwards. 

The work of Mr. Miller is so well known, that I need but 
refer to the facts about it. William Miller was bom at 
Pittsfield, Mass. , 1782, but he was reared at Low Hampton, 
N. Y. He was a farmer, with only the poor advantages of a 
country school He united with the Baptist church. About 
1831 he claimed that he had discovered by the propheciei 


the exact time, the very year, and, finally, the very day 
when Christ would appear and the end of the world 
would come. He succeeded in converting perhaps fifty 
thousand people to his views. The first date fixed 
was 1843. It failed. Then he fixed a day in October, 
1844, and that failed. Many other times have since 
been fixed by Mr. Miller's followers, and all have failed. 
Over fifty years have come and gone, and the end has not 
come yet. 

What was the one great burden of Miller, the one point 
on which he difiered from the Evangelical churches ? All 
these churches believed in the personal Second Advent of 
Christ just as strongly as Miller did. They loved Jesus and 
preached the Second Advent, even teaching that it was near 
at hand. But the Millerites said they knew the timie when 
it was to be, and that time was 1843-4. They staked all 
upon this. The issue was plain and definite. All who did 
not endorse their set time were "opposers," "enemies," "in 
the dark," "evil servants," rejected of God and lost, just 
because they would not believe in setting a time for the end. 
Here are Miller's words: "I believe the time can be known 
by all who desire to understand. * * * Between March 
21, 1840, and March 21, 1844, according to the Jewish 
mode of computation of time, Christ will come." Life of 
Miller, page 172. Jesus says: "Ye know not when the 
time is." Mark 13: 33. But the Millerites thought they 
knew better than Jesus Christ did. So they condemned all 
who did not agree with them. Here is a mild sample of 
what they said and the spirit that possessed them: " This is 
God's truth; it is as true as the Bible." " There is no pos- 
sibility of a mistake in this time." "Those who reject this 
light will be lost." "Those who do not accept this argu- 
ment are backsliders," etc. History of Advent Message, 
page 596. And this is the spirit that has followed then; 


ever since — a harsh, denunciatory spirit against all who did 
not agree with their figures, interpretations and theories. 
• But their set times came and passed without the least 
regard to their figures and facts, proofs and demonstrations, 
prayers and predictions. Remorseless old Time, the true 
tester of every theory, marched right on and demolished 
them all. This demonstrated the folly and error of the 
Adventists. Miller's prediction was a wretched abortion. 
He preached and propagated a falsehood. All his work 
wherein he diflered from evangelical churches was a false- 
hood. He preached that the world would end in 1843, and 
it didn't. He set 1844 for it to come, and it didn't. If 
ever a religious movement on earth was demonstrated to be 
a humbug and a failure, it was Millerism. But if Millerism 
was a failure, then Seventh-Day Adventism is also, for that 
was the fountain from which this has flowed; that was the 
foundation on which this is built. Deut. 18: 22: '*When a 
prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing fol- 
/ow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord 
hath not spoken." This, surely, is a simple and fair test. 
By this rule the Lord was not in Miller's move. 

" But were not the Adventists in 1843-4 very confident 
that they were right ?" Confident is no name for it. They 
were sure that they were right, they knew they were right, for 
they proved it all by the Bible, every word of it, positively. 
The Bible said so; to deny it was to deny the Bible. But it 
failed all the same. It is just so with Seventh-Day Advent- 
ists now. They are the most positive people in the world, 
though they have made scores of terrible blunders. 

That no one will know the time of the second advent is as 
plainly taught as words can teach. Read the following: 
" But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the 
angels of heaven, but my Father only;" ''Watch, therefore: 
for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come;" ''There* 


fore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not 
the Son of man cometh;" "Watch therefore, for ye know 
neither the day nor the hour wherein the Son of man com- 
eth." Matt. 24: 36, 42, 44; 25: 13. *' Take ye heed, watch 
and pray: for ye know not when the time is." Mark 13: 
33. "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, 
which the Father hath put in his own power." Acts 1: 7. 
Jesus said, "Ye know not when the time is;" Miller said, 
' ' We know when the time is. " Jesus said, "It is not for 
you to know the times or the seasons;" Miller said, " We 
know all about them." Jesus said, "No man knows the 
day;" Miller said, "We know the exact day." Which was 
right? The disappointments of the Adventists, time and 
again, during the past fifty years, in setting the date for the 
end of the world have clearly demonstrated their folly. The 
whole Advent move was conceived in error, born in a mis- 
take, has grown up in folly, and must die in disgrace. "But 
were not the Millerites honest?" There is no doubt of it, 
but that proves nothing as to their correctness. 


*'By their fruits ye shall know them." Millerism, for 
about four years, in a few states, created a great excitement. 
Churches were divided and broken up, pastors left their 
flocks to "lecture" on "time," while argument and strife 
were the order of the day. As the time set drew near, in 
thousands of cases, the Adventists not only left their work 
and their business, but gave away their property. Crops 
were left ungathered, goods were distributed freely, so that 
many who had been well to do were left penniless. After 
the time had passed, these were destitute and their families 
suffered. Many had to be arrested and put under guardi- 
ans, to protect their families. Then the wildest fanaticism 
broke out here and there, which brought disgrace upon the 


very name of religion. Many said the Lord had come, pro- 
bation was ended, it was sin to work, all property must be 
held in common, all the churches were apostate, Babylon, 
etc. Some Adventists had spiritual wives, some went to 
the Shakers, many went back into the churches, some into 
despair, and hundreds into doubt and infidelity — just what 
might have been expected. The glorious doctrine of the 
§econd Advent was covered with shame, Satan rejoiced, 
while the cause of Christ was greatly injured. For proof of 
these facts, I refer to the testimony of thousands now living, 
and to the published works of the Adventists themselves. 
Thus Elder U. Smith is compelled to say: '' The Advent body 
were a unit [in 1844] and their testimony shook the world. 
Suddenly their power was broken, their strength scattered, 
their ranks divided, and their testimony paralyzed. They 
passed the point of their expectation, and realized not their 
hope. That a mistake had been made somewhere, none 
could deny. From that point the history of a majority of 
that once happy, united people has been marked by discord, 
division, confusion, speculation, new mistakes, fresh disap- 
pointments, disintegration and apostasy." The Sanctuary, 
pages 13, 14. 

Paul said, "God is not the author of confusion." I. Cor. 
14: 33. Then surely he was not the author of Adventism, 
for the confusion it produced is unparalleled in religious 
history. Ten souls were ruined by it where one was saved. 
Immediately after 1844 they split up into numerous parties, 
each contradicting and condemning all the rest. Instead 
of renouncing the whole tiding, as sane men ought to have 
done, each ^one set himself to find some "explanation" of 
their mistake. Hardly any two agreed, while each one 
was sure he had the true explanation. Their utter con 
fusion is well illustrated by the following anecdote told by 
Mr. Miller himself: The first person in his own parish who 


fully embraced his views was an old woman, an humble 
Christian. Mr. Miller sent her his papers when he had read 
them. One week he received sixteen difierent sheets, all 
purporting to be Advent publications, but the most of them 
advocating contradictory sentiments. He sent them to the 
old woman. Soon she sent for him, and on his arrival began: 

'^Have you read all these papers? " 

*^I have looked them over." 

*' But are they all Advent papers ? " 

*' They profess to be." 

''Well, then," said she, '^I am no longer an Adventist. 
I shall take the old Bible and stick to that." 

"But," said Mr. Miller, "we have no confidence in one- 
half there is advocated in these papers. " 

" We ? " exclaimed the old lady, " who is we .^" 

" Why," replied Mr. Miller, " w^ are those who do not 
fellowship these things. " 

* ' Well, but I want to know who we is. " 

" Why, all of us who stand on the old ground." 

" But that ain't telling me who we is. I want to know 
who we is." 

"Well," said Mr. Miller, in relating the story, "I was 
confounded, and was unable to give her any information 
who we were." History of Second Advent Message, pages 
414, 415. 

And so it has continued unto this day. What do Ad- 
ventists believe ? Go ask what language was spoken by the 
people after the Lord confused their tongues at Babel. Ad- 
ventism is a second Babel. But Seventh-Day Adventists 
say, "We are united; we believe alike." Partly true, but 
they are only one branch of this Advent Babel. Such a 
brood of errors and heresies as has resulted from Adventism, 
cannot be found in the history of the church before. Time- 
setting, visions, miracles, fanatics, false prophets, sleep of 


the dead, annihilation of the wicked, non -resurrection of 
the wicked, future probation, restoration, community of 
goods, denial of the divinity of Christ, no devil, no baptism, 
no organization, etc., etc. Gracious ! And these are the 
people sent with a " message " to warn the church ! They 
had better go back and learn and agree on what their 
" message " is, before they run to deliver it. 

The other Adventists have set the time for the end of 
the world in 1843, 1844, 1847, 1850, 1852, 1854, 1855, 
1863, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1877, and so on, till one is sick of 
counting. Learning nothing from the past, each time 
they are quite as confident as before. 

This fanatical work has brought disgrace upon the doctrine 
of the Second Advent, so that it is not dwelt upon as much 
as formerly in other churches. The study of the prophecies 
has been brought into disrepute by the unwise course of the 
Adventists. No thoughtful man can fail to see this. 


It is the one constant boast of the Seventh-Day Adventista 
that they never set time; they don't believe in it. But they 
deceive themselves and deceive others when they say so. 
Elder White, their leader, engaged in preaching three dif- 
ferent set times for the Lord to come, viz., 1843, 1844, 1845. 
Here are his own statements on this : "I found myself happy 
in the faith that Christ would come about the year 1843." 
Life Incidents, page 72. Then he tells how he preached it. 
Of 1844, he says: "I stated my conviction that Christ 
would come on the tenth day of the seventh Jewish month 
of that year [1844]." Pages 166, 167. "It is well known 
that many were expecting the Lord to come at the seventh 
month, 1845. That Christ would then come we firmly be- 
lieved. A few days before the time passed, I was at Fair- 
haven and Dartmouth^ Mass. , with a message on this point 


of time." ''A Word to the Little Flock," by James White, 
page 22. So their leader was a time-setter. Mrs. White, 
their prophetess, was in the time-setting of 1843 and 1844. 
She herself says: ''We were firm in the belief that the 
preaching of definite time was of God. " Testimonies, Vol. I, 
page 56. Of the first date she says: "With carefulness and 
trembling we approached the time when our Saviour was 
expected to appear." Then she tells her disappointment. 
Testimonies, Vol. I, page 48. Again: "Our hopes now 
centered on the coming of the Lord in 1844." Page 53. 
She was a time-setter. Elders Bates, Andrews, Rhodes, 
and all the first crop of Seventh-Day Adventists were in the 
time-setting of 1843, 1844. They still endorse Miller's 
time-setting of 1843 and 1844 as right and approved of God. 
How much truth, then, is there in their assertions that they 
have never set time ? But they say, ' ' We did not keep the 
Seventh-Day when we set time; therefore ive never set time! " 
That is too thin. The thief says, ''/did not wear this coat 
when /stole the sheep, therefore /never stole him! " They 
say that they have given the three messages. Well, the 
first message was in 1844 when they set time. Are they 
the same people, or are they not ? 

Again they endorse Mr. Miller's work as of God. But 
Miller is responsible for all the time-setting done by the 
Adventists since his time, because they are the legitimate 
outgrowth of his work. He began setting time. He did it 
the second time. He taught them how to do it. He fathered 
the idea. He inculcated it in all his followers. They then 
simply took up and carried on what he had begun. Seventh- 
Day Adventists claim to be the original Adventists, and en- 
dorse Miller's work. In doing this they endorse time-setting, 
and should justly bear all the odium of that fanatical busi- 

But don't Seventh-Day Adventists rise to explain why 


they were disappointed in 1843, and again in 1844, and 
for forty years since? O, yes; but we naturally become a 
little suspicious of the man who is compelled to be con- 
stantly explaining his conduct. Straight work needs no 
explanation. They say the Lord caused them to be disap- 
pointed in 1843, on purpose to test their faith, that was all ! 
In 1844 they made just one little mistake, that was all ! 
They then taught that the earth was the sanctuary. Come 
to find out, the sanctuary is up in heaven, and Jesus did 
really come, in a certain sense, that very year ! So thej 
were all right, after all. Don't you see ? Clear as day. No • 
they have the whole matter removed from the troublesom j 
facts of earth, where we can test them, to the beautif:. 
theories of heaven, where no one can go to report on ta,ctt: 
which might spoil their theories. Now they can specvr 
late and argue in safety. But sober, thinking men see 
through all this. It is merely a make-shift to get out of si 

miller's confession — HE OPPOSES SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM. 

All the other Adventists long ago renounced the 1843-4 
time-setting as an error. Thus: "The majority of Advent- 
ists took the position that the time was an error of human 
judgment." History of the Second Advent Message, page 
383. Hear Mr. Miller himself: "On the passing of my 
published time, I frankly acknowledged my disappointment. 
* * * We expected the personal coming of Christ at that 
time; and now to contend that we were not mistaken, is dis- 
honest. We should never be ashamed frankly to confess our 
errors. I have no confidence in any of the new theories 
that grew out of that movement, namely, that Christ then 
came as the Bridegroom, that the door of mercy was 
closed, that there is no salvation for sinners, that the seventh 
trumpet then sounded, oi' that it was a fulfillTrient of jprcyph- 


ecy in cmy sense,'^^ History of the Advent Message, pages 
410, 412. 

From this we see: 1. That Miller, the founder and leader 
of that move, owned that it was an error. 2. He repudiated 
the idea that it was a fulfillment of prophecy in any sense. 
3. He especially points out the Seventh-Day Advent posi- 
tions as utterly wrong. He knew all about their arguments 
on the three messages, the sanctuary, the Sabbath, etc. , and 
yet he not only rejected them, but earnestly warned his 
people against them, so that very few of the original Ad- 
ventists ever accepted them. Hear Mrs. White herself on 
this point: " I saw leading men watching William Miller, 
fearing lest he should embrace the third angel's message 
and the commandments of God. As he would lean towards 
the light from heaven, these men would lay some plan to 
draw his mind away. I saw a human influence exerted to 
keep his mind in darkness, and to retain his influence among 
them. At length William Miller raised his voice against 
the light from heaven.''^ Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 167. 

Thus the father and founder of Adventism condemned 
and opposed the position which Seventh-Day Adventists 
took with regard to his own work. He had sense enough 
to see, and honesty enough to confess, that it was a mistake. 
But they will not have it so. They know better than he 
himself. They will have it that it was a wonderful fulfill- 
ment of Rev. 14: 6, 7. Miller denies it. Thus it will be 
seen that Seventh-Day Adventists give an interpretation to 
Miller's work which he himself condemned. Not a leading 
man in Miller's work ever embraced the views of the Seventh- 
Day Adventists, but have always opposed them as fanatical 
and as a side issue. None of the leaders of Seventh-Day 
Adventism, such as White, Andrews, Bates, Rhodes, etc., 
were ever of any note in Miller's work, though they were 
all in it; yet afterwards they claimed to be the only ones 


who had the right view of it. All the rest were '4n the 
dark," '* foolish virgins," " apostates," etc. How modest! 


A people who have made as many mistakes as Advent- 
ists have, ought to be very modest in their claims, and 
ought to see that they have been led by men and not by 
the Lord. 

1. They set the time for the end of the world in 1843, 
and failed. 

2. They set it again in 1844 and failed. 

3. Elder White, the leader of the Seventh-Day Advent- 
Ists, set 1845 for the end, and failed again. 

4. They held in 1844 that the earth was the sanctuary, 
another mistake, as they admit now. 

5. They all held for some time after 1844 that probation 
f^r sinners was ended — a fearful mistake. See pages 142-146 
of this book. 

6. For ten years Seventh-Day Adventists began the 
Sabbath at 6 p.m., instead of at sunset as now. Thus they 
broke the Sabbath every week! 

7. They kept their children out of school for years, be- 
cause time was so short they would need no education! 
Those children now have grand-children! 

8. They gave away their goods in 1844, because they 
would not need them after that! 

9. They would not vote, for that was like the fallen 
churches. Now they vote freely. 

10. They held that it was wrong to take a church name, 
for that was Babylon. Now they have a name. 

11. Church organization was wrong, for that was like 
Babylon. Now they organize. 

12. For years they said it was denying their faith to ^et 
out trees, for the3Mvould never grow to bear fruit. 


13. Led by a revelation from Mrs. White, the sisters put 
. >n the short dress with pants. None of them wear it now. 

14. For thirty years they would not take up any collec- 
tion on the Sabbath. Now they do it every week. 

15. For fifty years they have been expecting the end of 
the world to come inside of five years, and it has not come yet. 

16. They said Jesus would come to the earth in 1844. 
Now they say that was a mistake; he came to judgment in 
the sanctuary above. Thus: ''The Adventists of 1844 
* * thought the bridegroom would come; and then he did 
come — not to this earth, as they incorrectly supposed, but to 
the marriage.'^'' ''They simply mistook the kind of com- 
ing referred to." U. Smith, in Parable of the Ten Vir- 
gins, pages 13, 14. He owns that, 1. They got the time 
wrong in 1843. 2. The place wrong. 3. The event wrong. 
Now let him add, 4. The whole thing wrong, and he will 
be right ! 

17. Then they said the door was shut, Matt. 25: 10; now 
they say that this was wrong; it is open yet. Thus: "There 
can be no other place for the shut door but at the autumn 
of 1844." Elder White, in Present Truth, May, 1850. 
" The door is still open, and other guests may come." U. 
Smith, in Parable of the Ten Virgins, page IT, February, 
1889. These are the people who always know they are just 

18. They once adopted a rigid vegetarian diet — no meat, 
no butter, only two meals per day, etc. , but it was a failure. 
It killed many and ruined more, till they had to modify it 
and live like other people. 

These are only samples out of numerous mistakes the Ad- 
ventists have made; and this they have done with an inspired 
prophetess right at their head for forty-four years! These 
simple, undeniable facts alone should be enough to open the 
eyes of all to see that the Lord has not led them in their work. 




1. It was born in a mistake. The origin of Adventism 
was in the Millerite time-setting of 1843 and 1844, which 
all know was a mistake. 

2. That work produced great fanaticism, and wrought 
disaster to thousands of souls. 

3. Out of that movement has grown a whole brood of 
errors, as they themselves will admit. 

4. Seventh-Day Adventism is a system of popery — one- 
man power. From the first, Elder White took this position, 
and molded the whole system to fit it. He would and did rule 
and dictate in everything in all the field. He would make it hot 
for one who dared to start anything which he had not bossed. 
He was head and president of everything. So now a few 
run everything. Th.!_ word is law. It is contrary to the 
Gospel, and has resulted in the mental degradation of the 
mass of that people. A few think for all. 

6. The mere word of Mrs. White, an uneducated woman, 
is accepted as the voice of God to them dictating in every- 
thing. "As for my people, children are their oppressors, 
and women rule over them." Isa. 3: 12. 

6. From the start. Elder and Mrs. White would take up 
publicly the faults, real or imaginary, of any one and every 
one, ministers, editors and all, and expose them before the 
whole congregation. If any objected, they were "rebels." 
All this was then printed in her "Testimonies" as inspired, 
and circulated for all to read. This has begotten in all a 



habit of criticising and fault-finding, which is reprehensible 
to the last degree. Any one might have foreseen that it would 
result in this. Mrs. White herself now says: * 'There has been 
a picking at straws. And when there were no real difficulties 
in the church, trials have been manufactured." Testimonies, 
Vol. I, page 144. "Love for one another has disappeared, 
and a fault-finding, accusing spirit has prevailed. It has 
been considered a virtue to hunt up everything about one 
another that looked wrong, and make it appear fully as bad 
as it really was." Page 164. Mrs. White herself has set 
the example, and she is largely followed, till they ire a de- 
nomination of fault-finders. 

7. It is a fundamental doctrine with them that all the 
other churches are apostate and corr-"-'^ Hence they are 
eagerly on the watch for every evil thing they can pick up 
against them. This is poor business, and it ^o^-*-^ in them- 
selves a hard, unlovely spirit. 

8. They are constantly on the watch for all the evidence 
they can gather, showing that the world is rapidly growing 
worse. This again has a bad effect on themselves, tending 
to make them sour and gloomy. 

9. Their ministers are mere lecturers, going from place 
to place, staying only a few weeks at a time, and repeating 
the same old sermons over and over. As a consequence 
they become narrow and small and dry. Their preaching 
is almost wholly doctrinal and argumentative. This makes 
them hard and combative, instead of tender and charitable. 

10. Their churches are very small, generally numbering 
from fifteen to forty. They have no pastors, and seldom 
any preaching. Their meetings are held on Saturday, when 
others are at work, hence not a soul attends except them- 
selves. So their meetings are small and dull and tiresome, 
especially to youth and children. Never mingling with othel 
chm-ches, they soon fall into a rut and become very dry. 


The gi'eat mass of them are uncultured, and their local 
leaders are farmers or mechanics. The decorum seen in 
other churches is generally wanting in theirs. Their chil- 
dren are noisy, and often the members too. This is not 

11. Their theory compels them to be narrow and un- 
charitable. They cannot work at all with other Christians 
in anything. This is another bad feature of that system. 
They condemn all Christian workers who do not follow 
them. See how Jesus rebuked that narrow, bigoted spirit: 
"And John answered him, saying. Master, we saw one cast- 
ing out devils in thy name, and he followeth not us; and we 
forbade him because he followeth not us. But Jesus said, 
Forbid him not, for there is no man which shall do a miracle 
in my name, that can lightly speak evil of me; for he that 
is not against us is on our part." Mark 9: 38-4:0. 

12. In a community they have no influence whatever 
over the irreligious. Not one of them attends their meet- 
ings; not a child outside of their own families attends their 
Sabbath schools. Other churches, by their public meetings, 
sermons and schools on Sundays, have a mighty influence 
for good over the unconverted. 

13. Their work is largely proselyting. Truly, "they 
compass sea and land to make one proselyte." They will 
work just as hard to get a good old Christian out of another 
church as they will to convert a sinner. They tear down 
more than they build up. 

14. They count all lost who reject their "message." 
Their missions of which they boast so much are the dread 
of all other missionaries, as they work as hard to proselyte 
members from churches as they do to convert raw heathen 
or sinners. Thus, of their " mission " in London, Elder Has- 
kell says : " Thirteen have taken their stand on the Sabbath. 
* * These have come principally from the Church of 


England." Review, April 10, 1888. Yes, their converts 
are always "principally" from other churches. I became 
sick of such work. 

15. By their arguments they confuse the minds of many, 
so that they know not what to believe. They set them 
against other churches, and so they drift away from all and 
are entirely lost. Adventists have done a large amount of 
this work, and their influence in that line is fearful. 

16. Many of their children grow up to keep neither Sat- 
urday nor Sunday, nor to attend any church, and hence they 
become irreligious. 

17. Sunday-breakers who hunt, fish, sport or work that 
day, are encouraged in it by the arguments and examples 
of the Adventists. This certainly is evil. A community 
where Sabbatarians hve has no quiet rest-day at all. 

18. The power of God does not attend the Advent work 
as it should, if it is His special work. During my long ex- 
perience with them, I was impressed with the fact that, as a 
rule, the work was exceedingly dry and powerless. This 
disheartened me greatly. I saw that it was so with all their 
ministers, from large to small. Their year book for 1888 
shows that they did not average one convert to each minister! 

19. In fields where they have been the longest and are 
the best known, they have the least success. As soon as it 
is well understood what it really is, they can do nothing. 

20. The apostles, the reformers, and others whom God 
has sent, have built up large societies, and wielded a great 
influence for good in society. But the Adventists never do. 
They have no influence for good on society. This feature 
of the work often troubled me. Notice how the heretical 
and fanatical sects generally withdraw themselves from 
community, and build up a little exclusive society by them- 
selves. See the Shakers, the Mormons, the Oneida Com- 
munity, the followers of Mrs. Southcott, etc. Seventh-Daj^ 


Adventists become a little exclusive party in any community 
where they are. They go by themselves, and take part in 
almost nothing which interests others. Take my own town 
as an example. They have had a church here for thirty 
years, numbering from fifty to seventy-five. They take no 
part nor interest in any social, literary, moral, sanitary, 
temperance or religious work outside of their own. In these 
respects their influence is nothing. They are never thought 
of as helpers in any such necessary and noble work. They 
never attend a prayer meeting, a revival efibrt, or a Sabbath 
School except their own. The Young Men's Christian Asso- 
ciation, which is wholly unsectarian, is doing a noble work 
to save the young men of the place. Not one Adventist 
attends or takes the least interest in it. On the contrary, 
the Adventist store is open for trade, and thus becomes a 
resort for idlers and Sunday breakers. In whatever way 
considered, their influence is detrimental to the best inter- 
ests of religion and good society. 

How different it was with the followers of the true reform- 
ers, Luther, Wesley, Calvin, etc. They stood with the 
people, worked for them, and made society generally better. 

The moment a person becomes a thoroughly converted 
Seventh-Day Adventist, he is spoiled for any further useful- 
ness in society. This is their record everywhere, as all will 
testify who know them. To convert men to their doctrine 
is the all-absorbing passion of their lives, leaving them nei- 
ther interest, time nor means for anything else. 

21. I came to see that the great burden of Adventists 
was about merely speculative theories concerning which they 
cannot hnow positively that they are correct after all. Such 
are their theories about the sleep of the dead, destruction ot 
the wicked, the sanctuary in heaven, the time when Jesus 
will come, their interpretation of the image beast of Rev. 
13; 11-18, the mark of the beast, etc. Do they hnow that 


they are right about these ? No, they think they are, and 
others equally honest, pious and intelligent, think differently. 
I came to feel that it was fooKsh for me to spend my life 
over what after all I did not know was really so. But we do 
know that it is right to evangelize the heathen and the vicious 
of our cities, to save the drunken and fallen, to preach 
Christ and convert sinners, and to work for everything that 
will improve the condition of men and society now. But 
with Adventists these things are secondary or neglected 
entirely, while they constantly put their pet theories first 
and dwell upon them most of the time, 

22. All in their system that has been a blessing to them 
is held also by all evangelical churches, such as faith in God, 
in Jesus and the Bible, a pure heart, holy life, self-denial, 
etc. Nothing good has come to them or to the world by 
those doctrines which are peculiar to Adventists, as the time 
of the advent, the condition of the dead, the Sabbath, the 
visions, etc. 

23. Having been disappointed so many times and so 
long, taking so gloomy a view of things generally, they are 
as a class a very discouraged and unhappy set of people. 

24. It is "another gospel," Gal. 1: 6, which the apostles " 
never preached. I was long impressed with the fact that we 
Adventists preached very differently from the apostles. For | 
instance, we were always preaching and writing about the I 
Sabbath, while Paul in all his fourteen epistles mentions it 1 
but once^ Col. 2: 16, and then only to condemn it ! " We t _ 
find in the New Testament 'preach the gospel,' fifty times; \ 
'preach Christ,' twenty-three times; 'preach the word,' sev- \ 
enteen times; 'preach the kingdom,' eight times; 'preach 

the law,' or 'the Sabbath,' not once!" Warner. * 

25. They are unpatriotic„ Not a soul of them, man or 
woman, in field or hospital, lifted a finger to aid in putting 
down the rebellion or slavery. They staid at home and 


found fault. See Mrs. White's Testimonies, Vol. I, pages 
253-268. If a man had gone to the war he would have 
been expelled from the church, for Mrs. White forbade it. 
Hear her: "I was shown that God's people, who are his 
peculiar treasure, cannot engage in this perplexing war, for 
it is opposed to every principle of their faith.'' Testimonies, 
Vol. I, page 361. They hold that our nation is "the beast " 
of Rev. 13: 11-18, which will soon become a tyranny. 
Mrs. White says: "The nation will be on the side of the 
great rebel leader," the Devil. Testimony No. 81, page 
132. So they all feel. 

26. Their false ideas of Sunday leads them to join with 
Infidels, atheists, Jews, saloon-keepers and the irreligious 
generally in opposing any restriction on Sunday desecration. 
It is one of the anomalies of the age to see a Christian church 
unite with the worst elements of society and the enemies of 
Christ, to oppose the best interests of society and the sacri- 
ficing work of the most devout and intelligent of the land. 
What is a religion good for, anyway, which spoils a person 
for all practical usefulness in society ? what does it mean to 
' ' love your neighbor" ? 


The Adventists claim great light above all others on the 
prophecies. The old women and the little children among 
them confidently believe that they know more about the 
prophecies than all the commentators and scholars in the 
world. They can tell exactly what every horn, and wing, 
head and tail, trumpet and vial, beast or angel in all the 
prophecies means ! Any possibility of mistake ? Not the 
slightest. And yet probably no people ever made as many 
mistakes in the same length of time as Adventists have. 

Consider how little critical knowledge of exact historical 
dates and facts common people really possess. The great 


mass of intelligent business men, farmers, mechanics, moth- 
ers and housekeepers, would be poor judges in such matters. 
The most of them know nothing about it. They could not 
mtelligently dispute any statement a lecturer might make 
on such points. These Advent preachers go before such an 
audience night after night for six or eight weeks, with their 
positive statements boldly made and often repeated, till 
their deluded hearers think them to be most wonderful his- 
torians, and accept their statements as undoubted truths! 
So of their Bible readers, who go from house to house to 
expound the deep things of God. I know them well, have 
taught many of them, and have been in their training 
schools. Many of them could not get a third grade cer- 

tificate, nor have they ever read a volume of history. They 
simply learn by rote, parrot-like, a lesson which they repeat 
glibly to the astonished farmer or unread mother. Get 
them off this track and they are dumb. They are like those 
whom Paul rebuked, "Desiring to be teachers of the law; 
understanding neither what they say nor whereof they 
affirm." I Tim. 1 : 7. This fits them exactly.* 

* See Appendix B and C. 



Seventh-Day Adventists lay great stress upon their inter- 
pretation of this symbol. Rev. 13: 11-18. Their theory of 
the mark of the beast, and his image, the seal of God, the 
Third Angel's Message, and all their special work about the 
Sabbath is built upon their assumption concerning that 
beast. If they are mistaken here, their whole system col- 
lapses. They claim that this beast is the United States, 
and that soon we shall have here church and state united, 
the image of the beast, the papacy. The mark of the beast 
is Sunday-keeping. A law will enforce this upon Seventh- 
Day Adventists. They won't obey. Then they will be 
outlawed, persecuted, and condemned to death! Of all the 
wild Advent speculations in the prophecies, this deserves to 
stand among the wildest. 

1. Does the Bible say that this beast is the United 
States? Oh, no; they have to assume and argue out all 

2. Do they know that their arguments on this are infal- 
libly correct ? No. 

3. Were their leaders quite as sure in 1843, and then 
again in 1844, that they were right ? Yes ; and yet they 
failed both times. 

4. Have they not made many mistakes in interpreting 
the prophecies ? Yes ; many of them. 

5. Did not Elder White, their leader, set three different 
times for the end of the world, and fail in all ? Yes. (P. 75.) 

6. May they not th^n poss'My be mistaken also in this ? 



Of course, as they must admit. So their system rests 
upon an uncertainty. Or are they infallible ? 

7. Do our hopes of Heaven depend upon such uncer- 
tainties as these ? "Would it not be safer to follow the plain 
precepts of Christ (Matt. 7 : 24, 25), than to run after these 
uncertain speculations ? Better than to follow the lead of 
Adventists who have been making mistakes over and over 
again for eighty years ? " Take heed that no man deceive 
you." Jesus. Matt. 24: 4. I will offer a few out of many 
facts showing that their application of this symbol is not 

While Seventh-Day Adventists largely quote and follow 
the leading commentators and Protestant churches in their 
application of the other beasts, here they take a wild leap 
into the dark, unsupported by one single biblical scholar. 
Evidently this lamb-like beast represents the Papacy, or 
the spiritual and ecclesiastical power of the Roman church, 
and is so applied by every commentator I have consulted. 
Thus: ' 'This beast is the spiritual Latin empire, or, in other 
words, the Romish hierarchy." Clarke, on Rev. 13: 11. 
"It was, therefore, the emblem of the Roman hierarchy." 
Scott, on Rev. 13: 11. ''The generality of interpreter? 
confine this second beast to the papal power." Eclectic 
Commentary on Rev. 13: 11-18. "An exact description of 
the rise of the spiritual power of the Papacy." Notes on 
Rev. 13: 11, by the American Tract Society. "The beast 
with two horns like a lamb is the Roman hierarchy, or bodK 
of the clergy, regular and secular." Joseph Benson. "The 
two-horned beast or Romish church." Bisho'p Newton. 
Albert Barnes the same. Indeed, there is a perfect agree- 
ment among all commentators that this lamb-like beast rep- 
resents the Papacy. For the argument on this I only need 
refer the readers to the commentaries. 

Against this unanimous agreement of all Protestant 


churches and authorities, you have the unsupported specu- 
lations of the Adventists, who have made so many mistakes 
before. The proofs that this lamb-like beast is the Papacy 
are many, clear, and easily seen ; while the effort to apply it to 
the United States is labored, and the arguments strained, 
long, and far-fetched. Thua, in U. Smith's "Thoughts on 
Revelation," he devotes only eleven pages to the dragon of 
Chapter 12: 1-17, and only eight pages to the leopard beast 
of Chapter 13: 1-10, but wades heavily through over one 
hundred pages on the eight verses relating to the two-horned 
beast! This alone is proof of the desperate task he had on 
hand to prove that it was the United States. 

Beginning with Rev. 11: 19, and ending with Rev. 14: 5, 
is a line of prophecy reaching from the First to the Second 
Advent — the dragon, the leopard beast, and the lamb-like 
beast. The dragon. Chapter "'2: 1-17, is the pagan Roman 
empire. So all agree; Seventh-Day Adventists as well. The 
dragon had "seven heads and ten horns." Verse 3. This 
is succeeded. Chapter 13: 1-10, by the leopard beast with 
"seven heads and ten horns." What is this? Evidently 
the same Roman empire, the same ten kingdoms of Europe, 
with merely a change of religion from pagan to Catholic. 
Thus, Dr. Clarke: "The beast here described is the Latin 
empire, which supported the Romish or Latin church." On 
Rev. 13: 1. So Scott and all I have seen. This was the 
civil or political power of the ten kingdoms after professing 
Christianity. That this ten-horned leopard beast is not the 
Papacy nor the Catholic church, is shown by Rev. 17:1-5, 
where the same beast is again introduced with a woman 
riding on and ruling over it. The beast is the civil power, 
while the woman is the church. Even Elder Smith had to 
confess this. He says: "We here have the woman, the 
church, seated upon a scarlet-colored beast, the civil 
power by which she is upheld and which she con- 


trols and guides to her own ends as a rider controls a 
horse." On Rev. 17: 1-5. So, then, the leopard beast is 
the civil power. Just what it is in He v. 17 is what it is in 
Rev. 13. Did the Papacy have ten horns? Did it have 
seven heads? No; but political Rome did. 

That the lamb like beast of Rev. 13: 11-18 is not the United 
States at all, but is the Papacy, or ecclesiastical and spirit- 
ual power of the Romish church, is manifest. 

1. Rev. 17: 1-5, where the woman, the church, is dis- 
tinct from the ten-homed leopard beast and rules over it, 
shows that the beast is not the Papacy. 

2. Just so; the lamb-like beast of Rev. 13 rules through 
the power of the leopard beast. 

3. Whatever the woman is in Rev. 17, that is what the 
lamb-like beast is in Rev. 13. Hence, both are the papal 
power of Rome. 

Notice the similarity of the two: a woman m one place, a 
lamb in the other, both having the appearance of gentleness 
and innocence. The church is represented by a pure woman, 
n. Cor. 11: 2, and by lambs, John 21: 15; false religious 
teachers are represented by bad women, Rev. 2: 18-23, and 
by beasts clothed like sheep. Matt. 7: 15. The woman and 
the beast work together in Chapter 17; so the lamb-like 
beast and the leopard beast work together in Rev. 13: 12, 14. 
The woman is drunk with the blood of saints. Rev. 17: 6; 
the lamb beast causes the saints to be killed, Rev. 13: 15. 
The woman is burned with fire, Rev. 18: 8; so is the lamb 
beast. Rev. 19: 20. The woman sits upon the beast, guid- 
ing and ruling it. Rev. 17: 3; so the lamb beast "exer- 
ciseth all the power of the first beast," Rev. 13: 12. It 
does not simply exercise similar power, or as much power, 
as the beast, but it uses the power of the beast itself, the 
same as the woman did. He does not himself kill anyone, 
but causes them to be killed, Rev. 13: 15. This is exactlj^ 


what the Papacy did. It ruled over the kings of earth, 
Rev. 17: 18, and "caused^' heretics to be put to death by 
the secular power. "He exerciseth all the power of the 
first beast." 

It has ever been the boast of the Roman church that she 
never puts heretics to death. She simply anathematizes 
them, turns them over to the civil powers, and by her influ- 
ence with these, causes them to be killed by the secular 
powers. How exact is the language of the prophecy: he 
"causeth" it to be done; "he exerciseth [or useth] all the 
power of the first beast." 

Seventh-Day Adventists argue that the leopard beast, 
Rev. 13: 1-10, is the papacy, because it does the same work 
as the little horn of Dan. 7: 8, 25, which is agreed by all to 
be the papacy. But they overlook the fact that the leopard 
beast does all its work simply as the agent of the church, 
the woman in Rev. 17, and the lamb-like beast in Chap. 13. 
Hence, of course, it does the same work that the little horn 
of Dan. 7 does. 

Notice the inseparable connection between the leopard 
beast and the two-horned beast, the Roman civil government 
and the Papacy. 1. The lamb-like beast controls all the 
power of the first beast. Verse 12. 2. He does this in the 
presence and in the sight of the beast. Verses 12, 14. This 
shows that both occupy the same territory. 3. He causes 
men to worship the beast. Verse 12. 4. He causes men to 
make an image to the beast. Verse 14. 5. He causes men 
to receive the mark of the beast. Verses 16, 17. 6. The 
two beasts are working together when Christ comes. Rev. 
19, 20. 7. Together they go into the fire. Verse 20. Evi- 
dently, then, these two beasts operate together in all their 
work. This is precisely what the Catholic church and the 
Catholic political powers of Europe have done for ages, as 
all know. Has the United States ever thus co-operated with 


the papacy ? Emphatically, no. Is any man fanatical 
enough to believe that it ever will ? The papacy has exactly 
fulfilled every specification of the lamb-like beast. 

1. It came up in the right place " in his presence." Dia- 
glott, Bible Union, Living Oracles, etc. 

2. It came up at the right time after the wounding of the 
head. Rev. 13: 3. The interpretation adopted by Clarke, 
Scott, and the best authors, ''refers it to the extinction of 
the old Roman Empire under the imperial form in the latter 
part of the fifth century, and its revival again under Charle- 
magne." Notes of Am. Tract Society. 

3. The papacy came up in the right manner, peaceably 
and quietly. 

4. It had the appearance of a lamb. 
6. It has spoken like a dragon. 

6. It has exercised all the power of civil Rome. 

7. It brought the earth in subjection to Rome. 

8. By its great signs and wonders it has deceived mill- 
ions for ages. 

9. It has made an image to the beast. 

10. It has caused millions to be killed. 

11. It has imposed its worship and mark upon all. 

12. It has prohibited heretics from buying or selling. 
This is too well known to require proof. 

The lamb-like beast is not the United States; because 
1. " This two-horned beast symbolizes a religious or eccle- 
siastical government. The false prophet of Rev. 19: 20 
performs the same work as this beast (see verse 14), and 
therefore must be identical with it. This is admitted by 
Seventh-Day Adventists. Now, as a prophet is a religious 
teacher, a false prophet must be a false religious teacher; 
and as this applies to a government, it must therefore apply 
to an ecclesiastical government. Such the United States is 
not, for its government impurely political; for one clause of 


it« constitution is as follows: 'Congress shall make no la/w 
respecting an establishment of religion^ or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof. ' " The Two-Horned Beast, by A. C. 

2. The manner of its rise. The lamb-like beast comes up 
quietly and peaceably "out of the earth," Rev. 13: 11, while 
the other beasts come up out of the troubled sea. Rev. 13: 1. 
So the papacy came up quietly at first, with all the appear- 
ance of a lamb, but afterwards it spoke like a dragon. Wit- 
ness its persecutions and tyranny. Not so with our nation. 
It was born in a terrible war of seven years. Then followed 
the war of 1812, the war with Mexico, the war of the Rebel- 
lion, and war with Indians almost every year. Not very 

3. It was to exercise all the power of the first beast. 
Seventh-Day Adventists say that the first beast is the Papacy, 
which put to death over fifty million people, ruled over 
other kings, and over the consciences of men. Even Ad- 
ventists do not believe that the United States will do this. 

4. * 'Church and state must be united. This is against 
one of the fundamental principles of our government. The 
constitution expressly forbids it, consequently it must first 
be changed. And will the intelligent voters of these United 
States, with the history of past ages before them, deliber- 
rately change one of the main pillars of our government, 
and raise up the Inquisition, the block, the rack, etc. , and 
thus put to death many persons, simply for their religious 
faith ? It does not look reasonable. " A. C. Long. Besides, 
all the tendency of the age is against a union of church and 


\. "The two-horned beast must be the United States, 
because it can apply nowhere else." Answer: It applies 
admirably to the Papacy. 


2. •' There must be some symbol to represent this great 
nation." Answer : There is none for Kussia, for Mexico, 
Brazil, Japan, China, and a dozen other nations, most of 
them professing Christianity too. 

3. " The United States came up at the right time, about 
1798, when the head received its deadly wound. Rev. 13: 3." 
Answer: Thid very point overthrows the argument for the 
United States; for that wound was given at the very rise of 
the leopard beast, more than 1,200 years before 1798. Look 
at verses 3-10; all the work of the beast comes after the 
wound and not hefore. This locates the rise of the lamb- 
like beast just when the Papacy rose. 

4. "The United States came up in the right place." 
That is exactly what it did not do. The beast is located in 
Europe, and a whole ocean rolls between the two; whereas 
the two-horned beast was to come up "in his presence," in 
Europe, not America. 

5. * *Our government has ^come up' from small beginnings 
to a wonderful nation." Answer: The Papacy began much 
smaller, and has "come up" to be much larger. 

6. "Our government is lamb-like." So was the Papacy 
in its rise and all its professions. A lamb in appearance, a 
dragon at heart, fits Rome much better. Our government 
does not put on sheep's clothes to hide wicked designs. It 
acts openly and boldly. But the Papacy professed out- 
wardly to be a humble follower of the Lamb, while inwardly 
it was a dragon. 

7. "No crowns on his horns. Hence, it must be a re- 
public — the United States." Answer: The ten-horned beast 
of Dan. 7 had no crowns, yet all were kingly governments. 
So the dragon. Rev. 12: 3, had no crowns on his ten horns, 
yet all were kingly governments. So there were crowns upon 
his seven heads, yet several of these he^^ds represented forms 
of government that h^>d «o cj-owhs- So this argument fails. 


8. ** Spiritualism has wrought the miracles here.'' The 
ttiiracles of spiritualism are a humbug, nor are they in any 
way recognized or used by our nation in making laws. But 
in the prophecy the miracles are wrought by official author- 
ity, and not by private individuals, wrought to secure and 
enforce laws for persecution. Verse 14. Spiritualism does 
not do this. And surely our nation will never lower itself 
to the working of miracles by official authority! But papal 
Rome has abounded in lying miracles, by which she de- 
ceived her followers for ages. Our nation is now over one 
hundred years old, and, according to Adventists, five or ten 
years more will end its work. But out of eight verses of 
the prophecy only one is yet fulfilled, if our nation. 

1. The beast was to come up. Fulfilled. 

2. He was to come out of the earth. Fulfilled. 

3. Was to have two horns. Not fulfilled. 

4. Was to look like a lamb. Fulfilled. 

But all these specifications are much better fulfilled by the 
Papacy than by the United States. 

5. Was to speak as a dragon. Not fulfilled. 

6. Was to exercise all the power of the first beast. Not 
fulfilled. -. 

7. Must cause the earth to worship the first beast. Not 

8. Must do great wonders. Not fulfilled. 

9. Must bring fire from Heaven. Not fulfilled. 

10. Work miracles. Not fulfilled. 

11. Is to make an image to the beast. Not fulfilled. 

12. The image is to speak. Not fulfilled. 

13. To cause all to be killed who do not worship the 
beast. Not fulfilled. 

14. To cause all to receive the mark. Not fulfilled. 

15. To prohibit all from buying or selling who do not 
have the mark. Not fulfilled. 


Out of fifteen points only four have been fulfilled, and 
these relate simply to its rise. Of all the work it was to do, 
not a thing has been done yet. Adventists are always say- 
ing that the rest is just about to be done. But in the past 
forty years not one single point has been fulfilled, nor is 
there the least prospect that it ever will be. Unless God 
works a miracle, no such thing as they are looking for can 
be accomplished anyway. 

The mark was to be enforced upon bondmen, verse 16; 
but slavery is abolished, and that can not be fulfilled here, 
but it was fulfilled under papal Kome. Souls were beheaded 
for not worshiping the beast. Rev. 20: 4. This was all 
fulfilled under the Papacy, but Seventh-Day Adventists 
themselves say no one will be killed here. 

We have now proved conclusively that the two-horned 
beast is not the United States. This being so, then Seventh- 
Day Adventists are wrong on the image of the beast, the 
mark of the beast, the Third Angel's Message, and the Sun- 
day question, and hence their whole theory collapses. 


In Rev. 13: 14-17; 14: 9-11; 15: 2; 19: 20; 20: 4, great 
prominence is given to ''the image of the beast." God's 
wrath is threatened against all who worship it. It must, 
then, be some very wicked thing. Seventh-Day Adventists 
claim that the image will be formed by a union of church 
and state in our nation. That will be an image to Catholi- 
cism, the beast, they say. See "Thoughts on the Revela- 
tion," page 681. Their great mission is to warn men of 
this coming image. Sunday-keeping, the Pope's Sabbath, is 
to be the chief feature of this image. After thorough inves- 
tisration, I am satisfied that there is no truth in this claim. 

1 . If a union of church and state constitutes an image to 
he beast, then this image has been formed ages ago, and by 


different nations, wherever there has been a union of tnurch 
and state as in England, Scotland, Ireland, Germany, 
Switzerland, Russia, Norway and Sweden, Mexico, Brazil, 
Abyssinia, Puritan New England, etc. But this would over- 
throw the Seventh-Day Adventist theory that the image has 
never yet been formed. 

2. They say that the Papacy is the beast to whom the 
image is formed. Elder Smith thus defines the Papacy: 
"The Papacy, then, was a church clothed with civil power." 
Thoughts on Revelations, page 585. Is this definition cor- 
rect? No; it is utterly false, as every scholar knows. It 
was made to fit a theory as false as the definition. Look at 
any dictionary. "Papacy: 1. The office and dignity of the 
Pope. "^ * * 2. The Popes taken collectively." Web. The 
Papacy existed long before it was clothed with civil power. 
[t has no civil power now, yet it is the Papacy still. So, 
then, an image to the Papacy does not necessarily include 
civil power or a union of church and state at all. On this 
false assumption is built the Advent theory of the image. 

3. What is the Papacy ? See Webster above. It is that 
ecclesiastical system of worship of which the Pope is head. 
Its distinguishing marks are these: 1. Popes. 2. Cardinals. 
3. Monks. 4. Nuns. 5. Celibacy. 6. The mass. 7. 
Worship of the virgin. 8. Worship of saints. 9. Use of 
images. 10. Sign of the cross. 11. The confessional. 12. 
Use of incense. 13. Holy water. 14. Claim of infallibility. 
15. A gorgeous worship, and the like. This is the Papacy, 
as known to everybody the world over. Now unite our 
Protestant churches with our state, pass a law and fine Sab- 
bath-keepers, and how many of the above distinguishing 
features of the Papacy would you have? Not one. In 
order to have an image to the Papacy, you must have ar 
least the main features of it, as above. But even Adventists 
do not expect to see any of the above items in their Sunday 


law. Their idea of an image to the beast is a senseless, 
unscriptural affair from the first to last. 

4. A stringent national Sunday law, such as Adventist^ 
expect, would by no means constitute an image to the 
Papacy; because the Catholics never had nor taught such 
a Sunday institution as that would be. Their Sunday is, 
and always has been, a loose holiday, a day for games, 
sports, beer gardens, saloons, dancing, voting, and even 
work, with a little church service and Mass in the morning. 
Look at the Sunday in any Catholic country or community. 
Such a strict Sunday as Adventists expect would be no 
more like that than a sheep is like an ox; hence, not an 
image to it. The Adventists themselves have shown that 
the doctrine of a strict Sunday did not originate with the 
Catholics, but with the Presbyterians and Puritans in the 
sixteenth century. History of the Sabbath, Chapter XXV. 
So, then, their Sunday law would constitute an image to 
the church of Scotland instead of the church of Rome I 

So their theory breaks down on all sides; 

6. All this on the supposition that the Papacy is ^he 
leopard beast to which the image is to be made. But we 
have proved that the leopard beast is not the Papacy, but 
the empire of Rome under the ten kingdoms after their 
adoption of Christianity. But their conversion was only 
nominal. They brought with them very largely their pagan 
doctrines, customs, religious rites, images, gods, shrines, 
temples, and pomp of worship. This became the model 
after which the Papacy was gradually but finally formed. 
The Papacy in its full and final development was an image 
of this half heathen, half Christian, worldly kingdom. 


The utter fallacy of the Seventh-Day Adventist theory oi 
these beasts is shown by the fact that they locate the deadly 


wound of Rev. 13: 3 in 1798, at the end of the forty two 
months of verse 5, after nearly all the work of the beast is 
done. But in the prophecy it is distinctly located in the 
very beginning of the work of the leopard beast. Read Rev. 
13: 1-10, and see where the wound was made, verse 3. The 
worship of the beast, his power, his blasphemies, his perse- 
cutions of the saints, his forty-two months, his 1260 years 
reign, the subjection of all the earth to him — all these come 
after the wound is healed, not before. On the overthrow 
of paganism, the breaking up of the empire by the northern 
barbarians, and the final extinction of the western empire, it 
looked as though the Roman empire was about to be entirely 
extinguished. But right here Christianity conquered those 
barbarians, and brought them under the rising influence of 
the Papacy. New life was infused into the old carcass, the 
empire was revived, the wound was healed. See Barnes, 
Clarke, Scott, etc. 


1. Seventh-Day Adventists assert in the most positive 
manner that the Pope changed cue Sabbath to Sunday. 
'^ The Pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to 
the first day." Mrs. White, Early Writings, page 55. 

2. Then they affirm that " Sunday-keeping must be the 
mark of the beast." The Marvel of Nations, by U. Smith, 
page 183. ^'The Sunday Sabbath is purely a child of the 
Papacy. It is the mark of the beast." Advent Review, 
Vol. I, No. 2, August, 1850. They thunder this into the 
ears of people, and threaten them with God's wrath if they 
keep Sunday, till they frighten ignorant souls to give it up. 

3. This change in the Sabbath, they say, was made by 
the Popes at the Council of Laodicea, A. D. 364. Replies 
to Elder Canright, page 151. This was over 1500 years ago. 

4. All who keep Sunday, they assert, worship the beast 


and receive his mark. *' Sunday-i^eeping is an institution of 
the first beast, and all who submit to obey this institution 
emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, 
*the mark of the beast.' * -^ * Those who worship the 
beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly 
idolaters, as were the worshipers of the golden calf." Ad- 
vent Review Extra, pages 10 and 11, August, 1850. This 
language is too plain to be mistaken. All who keep Sunday 
have the mark of the beast. 

5. But, strange to tell, they now all deny that any one has 
ever had the mark of the beast. " We have never so held," 
says Smith, Marvel of Nations, page 184. All right, though 
this is a square denial of what they once taught, as above. 
It is a common thing for them to change their positions and 
then deny it. We proceed: 

6. The United States will soon pass a strict Sunday law 
and unite church and state; then all who still keep Sunday 
will have the mark. Marvel of Nations, page 185. 


Does the Bible say that the mark of the beast is keeping 
Sunday ? No, indeed. That is only another one of their 
assumptions. To establish this, they have to make a long, 
roundabout set of arguments, built upon inferences none of 
which are sound. Their theory is false, because: 

1. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross. [Col. 
2: 16.] Hence, it was not changed by the Pope. 

2. Sunda}' is the Lord's day of Rev. 1: 18. See Chapter 
X of this book. 

3. The Pope never changed the Sabbath. This point I 
have proved beyond all question in Chapter XI. This fact 
alone upsets their whole argument on the mark of the beast. 

4. The Papacy is not the beast to whom the image is made, 
as they assume. Here again their whole theory is demolished. 


5. Merely keeping Sunday would not be an image to the 
Papacy any way, as I have shown. 

6. The two-horned beast is not the United States at all, 
but is the Papacy, as I have clearly proved. 

7. The image to the beast was made ages ago by the 
Papacy. So every one of their arguments for the mark of 
the beast fails. 


1. Sunday-keeping has been the mark of the beast for 
1500 years. During all this long time millions have kept 
Sunday on the sole authority of the Roman church, and yet 
no one had the mark ! 

2. The keeping of Sunday has been time and again and 
:n many countries enforced by law and severe penalties, just 
as they say it will be in the future here, and yet none of 
those who have kept it as thus enforced have had the mark 
of the beast ! 

3. Church and state have been united in various coun- 
tries, and have enforced this institution of the Papacy, as 
they call it, and yet it was not enforcing the mark of the 
beast ! 

4. For over 1500 years, taking their own dates, all the 
pious of the earth, the mart3rrs, the reformers, the Luthers, 
Wesley s and Judsons, have observed Sunday and enjoyed 
the blessing of God, but now, all at once, the whole world, 
Christians and all, are to bo damned and drink the wrath of 
God for doing just what all holy men have done for ages ! 
Of Sunday-keeping in the future, Mrs. White says: "That 
must be a terrible sin which calls down the wrath of God 
unmingled with mercy." Great Controversy, page 282. 
This terrible sin is just what all the church of Christ haa 
practiced for ages, and yet have had God's blessing ! Hotv 


5. It is attempted to dodge this point by saying that 
those of other ages did not have the light on the Sabbath. 
I have shown the falsity of that on other pages. Luther, 
Bunyan, Baxter, Milton, all had the "light" on the Sabbath 
question, and rejected it and wrote against it. Then I can 
do it, too, and not have the mark of the beast, if they 
did not. 

6. If it is worshiping the beast to rest from physical 
labor on Sunday after one knows that Sunday is the Pope's 
Sabbath, then many Seventh-Day Adventists are worship- 
ers of the beast. Why ? Because they often rest on Sun- 
day. Book agents, colporters, teachers, drummers, persona 
visiting relatives, ministers in new places, etc. , all frequently 
rest on Sunday, and even go to church all day ! Are they 
worshipers of the beast? Why not? Do you say they 
only do it for convenience or from policy ? Just so they can 
rest on Sunday for the same reason when the law shall 
require it, and not worship the beast any more than Advent- 
ists do now. 

7. Deny it as they may, the Seventh-Day Adventist 
teachings do make all Sunday-keepers, both now and in past 
ages, worshipers of the beast, having the mark of the beast. 
Here is proof in their own words: 

1. The Pope changed the Sabbath. Sunday is onl}? 
the Pope's day. See above. 

2. ' ' The mark of the beast is the change the beast made 
in the law of God," in the Sabbath. Marvel of Nations, 
page 175. Then the mark of the beast existed as soon as 
the change was made, which they locate 1500 years ago. Is 
not this conclusion inevitable ? If the mark of the beast is 
the change of the Sabbath which was made by the Papacy 
in the fourth century, then that mark has existed ever since. 
There is no escape from this conclusion. 

3. All who have kept the law since that date, as changed 


by the beast, have been keeping the law of the beast, not 
the law of God; have been \vorshii)ers of the beast, not wor- 
ehipers of God. Here is their own argument for it: Refer- 
ring to the prophesy that the Papacy should "change times 
and laws,'' Dan. 7: 25, which they claim the Pope fulfilled 
A. D. 304. by changing the Sabbath to Sunday, Elder Smith 
says: "When this is done [which is 1500 years ago], what 
do the people of the world have ? They have two laws de- 
manding obedience" — the law of God and the law of the 
Pope. If they keep the law of God, as given by Him, 
they worship and obey God. If they keep the law as 
changed by the Papacy, they worship that power. * * * 
For instaiice, if God says that the seventh day is the Sab- 
bath, on which we must rest, but the Pope says that the first 
day is the Sabbath, and that we should keep this day, and 
not the seventh, then whoever observes that precept as orig- 
inally given by God, is thereby distinguished as a worshiper 
of God; and he who keeps it as changed is thereby marked 
as a follower of the power that made the change. * * * 
From this conclusion no candid mind can dissent." Marvel 
of Nations, pages 174 and 175. 

Then, for the past fifteen hundred years, all who have 
kept Sunday have been "marked" as followers of the beast 
and have worshiped him! From their own argument, does 
not this inevitably follow ? Of course, it does When they 
try to deny and evade this abominable conclusion, they 
simply contradict and stultify themselves. Either their 
argument is a fallacy, or else this conclusion must follow. 
Look at this hideous Moloch which they have set up to 
frighten the ignorant. The Pope in the fourth century 
changed the law of God by changing the Sabbath to Sun- 
day. This change is the mark of the beast; whoever after 
that keeps that law as thus changed, is keeping not the law 
of Godo but the Pope's law; is worshiping, not God, but 


the Pope. But all Christians for fifteen hundred years have 
kept Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, the mark of the beast, 
and, as Smith says, were ^'' thereby marked as followers of 
the power that made the change." From this conclusion 
there is no escape. And so all Sunday-keepers have had 
the mark of the beast, and have it now. 

But they say that they do not teach that anyone as yet 
has had the mark of the beast. This shows the absurdity 
of their argument. Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, 
yet Sunday-keepers have not got the mark of the beast! 
For instance: I have a hundred counterfeit bills; I pay them 
out to fifty men in Otsego, and tney take and keep them, 
yet not a man of them has a counterfeit bill! Isn't that clear 
— as mud ? But they don't know that they are counterfeit 
bills, and so are not guilty for having them. But have they 
not got counterfeit bills for all that? Certainly. So, if 
Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast, then every i^an 
that keeps Sunday has the mark of the beast, whether i/3 
knows it or not. God may not hold them guilty for it, but 
they have it just the same. Now, as soon as these fifty men 
are informed that their bills are counterfeit, are they not 
guilty if they use them after that ? Yes. So, as soon as a 
man is informed that Sunday is the mark of the beast, if he 
keeps it after that has he not the mark of the beast as truly 
as ever he can have it ? And if he still keeps Sunday volun- 
tarily is he not just as guilty before God as though the law 
compelled him to keep it? Yes, and more so; because now 
he has no excuse, w^hile then he could plead that he was 
compelled to do it. So, then, it needs no Sunday law to 
give men the mark of the beast. All Sunday-keepers have 
it already, and as soon as they are informed that Sunday is 
the mark of the beast, then they are guilty as worshipers 
of the beast. But Seventh-Day Adventists have already in- 
formed thousands upon this point. Then if they have not 


the mark of the beast, why not ? Surely 1 have been en- 
lightened on itj and yet I keep Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath, 
the mark of the beast. Have I the mark of the beast ? Let 
them answer if they dare. Remember that Luther, Milton, 
Baxter, Bunyan and Miller were all informed on the Sab- 
bath question, and still wrote against it and kept Sunday. 
Reader, this Advent mark of the beast is an absurdity and 
only a scare-crow. Don't be frightened. 

Even if the Pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday, that 
would not make Sunday Ms mark. The mark of any person 
was that which he used to mark things as belonging to him. 
In Bible times a master would put his mark on the right 
hand or forehead of his slaves. Heathen gods had their 
worshipers marked so. This custom is referred to and 
used here as an illustration. So the worshipers of the 
beast would be required to do something which would mark 
or distinguish them as his followers. But keeping Sunday 
does not distinguish a Catholic fi'om members of other 
churches, for all churches keep Sunday — the Greek, Armen- 
ian, Lutheran, Episcopal, Methodist, etc. The Pope has 
never used Sunday to distinguish his followers from others, 
nor as proof of his authority as head of the church. He 
does point to the keys of St. Peter and his regular 
apostolic succession from him as proof of his authority. 
Says Dowling: "The Popes assert ' their 6?it'm6 right of 
supremacy in consequence of their claiming to h^ the suc- 
cessors of the Apostle Peter." History of Romanism, page 
44. On this, not on Sunday-keeping, they base their claim 
of power. Some obscure catechism is quoted, claiming 
authority for the church to "command feasts and holy days," 
because that church has made Sunday holy. This falls in- 
finitely short of making Sunday the proof of all their author- 
ity, the one "mark" of that church. 

4. It is absurd to say that resting on Sunday is such « 


fearful crime as Adventists affirm. Hear Elder Smith: 
* 'Sunday-keeping must be the mark of the beast." "The 
reception of his mark must be something that involves the 
greatest offense that can be committed against God. " Marvel 
of Nations, pages 170, 183. So keeping Sunday is more 
wicked than lying, steahng, or even murder or idolatry! 
Such a statement is monstrous. In the mind of any candid, 
thinking man, it must break down under the weight of its 
own absurdity. 


Elder Smith himself has stated this as clearly as need be: 
"It will evidently be some act or acts by which men will be 
required to acknowledge the authority of that image and 
yield obedience to its mandates." "So the mark of the beast, 
or of the Papacy, must be some act or profession by which 
the authority of that power is acknowledged." Marvel of 
Nations, pages 169, 172. Exactly; any act or acts by which 
men show their reverence for the beast or his image, any 
form of worship by which they acknowledge his authori*^y, 
that would be worshiping the beast and his image and re- 
ceiving his mark. Dr. Clarke says: "The Latin [Catholic] 
worship is the universal badge of distinction of the Latin 
church from all other churches on the face of the earth, and 
is, therefore, the only infallible mark by which a genuine 
papist can be distinguished from the rest of mankind." On 
Rev. 13: 16. This is the position taken by Protestants gen- 
erally, and I believe it to be correct, A conformity to the 
system of worship set up by the Papacy, that great anti- 
Christian power, the image to the beast, would be worship- 
ing the beast and his image and receiving his mark. To 
worship the beast is a great crime; but is it a crime to de- 
vote a day to God, even though the Bible has not required 
it? Surely not, for Paul says: "He that regardeth the day, 

^ See Appeudix D. 


regardeth it unto the Lord." Rom. 14: 6. About doing 
this he says: *'Let every man be fuIJy persuaded in his own 
mind," Verse 5. So we are at liberty to regard Sunday 
unto the Lord, if we so choose. Hence, it cannot be a sin 
as Adventists claim, and so cannot be the mark of the beast. 


The one great claim of Seventh-Day Adventists is that 
they are preaching the three messages of Eev. 14: 6-12. 
This is their constant theme. So the Mormons claim that 
Joe Smith preached this message. But there is not a parti- 
cle of foundation for the claim in either case. Read the first 
message, verses 6, 7. An angel is seen preaching the gospel 
to every nation, sa;ying: *' Fear God, and give glory to him, 
for the hour of his judgment is come; and worship him that 
made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of 
waters." This was fulfilled by the apostles and early Chris- 
tians, as they preached the gospel to all nations. Jesus 
said, *'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature." Mark 16: 15. The angel in Rev. 14: 6, 7, 
is seen preaching the gospel to every nation, as Jesus 
commanded. Compare Paul's sermon to the idolatrous hea- 
then at Lystra, Acts 14: 15, with the words of the first mes- 
sage. Rev. 14: 7, and they will be seen to be almost identical. 
Said Paul: We '* preach unto you that ye should turn from 
these vanities unto the living God, which made heaven, and 
earth, and the sea, and all things that are therein." So Rev. 
14: 7 says: "Worship him that made heaven, and earth, and 
the sea." This, then, was a message to idolators, announc- 
ing to them the living God who made all things, but of 
whom they had been ignorant. This is exactly what the 
early church preached to the heathen nations till idolatry 
was overthrown. 

Paul says the gospel "was preached to every creature 


which is under heaven," Col. 1 : 23. This was before he 
died, and this exactly fulfilled Kev. 14 : 6, Y. But the 
Advent work of 1844 was a small, local affair, limited to 
a few states ; much less was it preached to all nations. 

Adventists claim that Wm. Miller preached this message 
in 1840-4. He did no such thing. The burden of his 
preaching was that the end of the world would come in 
1 843 and then in 1844. But he preached what failed both 
times, as we know. Does God send men to make such 
blunders as that ? Miller did not preach the hour of judg- 
ment come. That was an afterthought, an interpretation put 
upon his work which was not thought of at the time. 

It is claimed that the apostles could not have preached 
this message, as the judgment did not come in their day. 
Let us see. Jesus preached thus: "AW is the judgment of 
this world." John 12: 31. Jesus said, "Now is the judg- 
ment." Who will contradict him and say it wasn't ? Peter 
said: "For the time is come ih^t judgment must begin at 
the house of God." I. Pet. 4: 17. Then the judgment did 
begin there. Here are two direct testimonies, and that is 
enough. So in exact harmony with these, the First Angel 
announces, "The hour of his judgment is come." Kev. 14: 7. 
If any one wants to see the truth, this is clear enough; if they 
don't want to, there is no use arguing with them further. 


"And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fall- 
en, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink 
of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. " What is Babylon, 
that great city ? It is fully described in Rev. 17 and 18, and 
is regarded by all Protestants as the Roman church. Advent- 
ists themselves agree wdth this, though endeavoring to make 
Babylon also include the Protestant churches. Even with 
their view Babylon, "the great," must refer primarily to 


Rome, and only include other fallen churches as a secondary 
idea, as her daughters. Seventh-Day Adventists claim that 
this message was preached by the Millerites in 1844. When 
the churches refused to believe Miller that the end of the 
world would come in 1844, and that he could tell the very 
day, then and for this unbelief all these churches were rejected 
of God and fell. Mrs. White says: ''Satan has taken full pos- 
session of the churches as a body. * * «• Their profes- 
sion, their prayers, and their exhortations are an abomination 
in the sight of God." Early Writings, page 135. What 
awful thing had they done to fall so ? Why, Miller said the 
world would end in 1844, and they said it wouldn't. He 
was wrong and they were right, but God rejected them and 
blessed the Millerites ! This is a fair illustration of the 
egotism and inconsistency of the Adventists. Did they 
preach what Rev. 14: 8 says ? No ! They said Babylon was 
fallen hecmise she rejected Millerism, but the message gives 
a far different reason. Babylon fell ' 'because she made all 
nations drink of the wine of her fornication." The Bible 
gives one reason, Adventists give another. Did the Prot- 
estant churches in America in the short space of about five 
years, during Miller's preaching, and by simply rejecting 
his time-theory — did they thus make all nations drunk? 
The idea is absurd. This message must have a far deeper 
and broader meaning than this. So they never preached this 
message. Just a few of the churches in the eastern states 
heard and rejected Millerism; for this all the tens of mill- 
ions of church members throughout the whole world, who 
never even so much as heard of Miller, were rejected of 
God ! What an unreasonable position. Again, Babylon 
must at least include Rome. Did the Catholic church fall 
in 1844? No, for she fell ages ago, as every Protestant 
knows. So, then, the fall of Babylon does not mean what 
Adventists say, nor did they preach what the message says. 


A thousand times more probable is the application of this 
message to the work of Luther and the Reformation. Till 
the time of Luther the Papal church was supposed to be the 
true church, and as such it ruled over the kings of earth 
and the consciences of men. Luther startled the world 
with the bold proclamation that the Roman church was the 
"• Mother of harlots," "Babylon the great," of Rev. IT: 1-6, 
and that she was fallen, as stated in Rev. 14: 8; 18: 1-4. 
October 6, 1520, he published his famous book on the 
"Babylonish Captivity of the Church." 

I will quote from D'Aubigne's History of the Reformation, 
Vol. II.: "Luther had prepared a mine, the explosion of 
which shook the edifice of Rome to its lowest foundation. 
This was the publication of his famous book on the 'Baby- 
lonish Captivity of the Church,' which appeared on the 6th 
of October, 1520." Page 130. In it he said: "I know that 
the Papacy is none other than the kingdom of Babylon." 
Page 131. "Christians are God's true people, led captive 
to Babylon. " Page 133. ' 'All the evils that afflicted Christ- 
endom, he sincerely ascribed to Rome. " Page 138. Says Lu- 
ther: "It is true that I have attacked the court of Rome; but 
neither you nor any man on earth can deny that it is more cor- 
rupt than Sodom." Page 139. "This Babylon, which is con- 
fusion itself." "Rome for many years past has inundated 
the world with all that could destroy both body and soul. 
The church of Rome, once the foremost in sanctity, is be- 
come the most licentious den of robbers, the most shameless 
of all brothels, the kingdom of sin, of death, and of hell." 
Page 140. 

Here was a proclamation of the fall of Babylon, which 
was worthy of the name. Truly, Rome had made all nations 
drunk with her wine. She had ruled over all nations; had 
become rich; had lived in splendor; had killed the saints; 
had become the habitation of every evil spirit. All this is 


exactly portrayed in Rev. 17: 1-6, where "Babylon the 
great," of Chapter 14: 8, is more fully described. Then in 
Rev. 18: 1-4 the announcement of the fall of Babylon, as 
noticed in Chapter 14: 8, is more fully explained, but it is 
the same message. This fits Luther's work exactly. 

Luther's message was a mighty cry, which enlightened 
the earth, announced the fearful corruptions of Rome, and 
called out of her millions of people, and gave to the world 
that mighty power. Protestantism. In all the history of the 
world such a mighty religious move had never before been 
seen. This was worthy of a notice in prophecy. 

Consider this fact: While Adventists find hundreds of 
prophecies, whole chapters of them, applying to their little 
work, they find none foretelling the great rehgious move- 
ment of the Reformation which revolutionized the world! 
It illustrates how they interpret everything to fit them- 
selves. No; the second message of Rev. 14: 8, the fall of 
Babylon, applies to the Catholic church, not to Protestants, 
and was given three hundred and fifty years ago by Luther, 
not by the Millerites in 1844. 


This warning against the worship of the beast and his 
image, and his mark, has been given by all the Protestant 
churches for the last three hundred years. Look at the 
multitude of books against popery and the corruptions of 
Catholicism. From press and pulpit has been thundered 
one continual warning against apostate Rome. Never was 
a prophecy more plainly fulfilled than this. 

Seventh-Day Adventists say that they are giving this 
message. Never was a claim more absurd. 

1. They are mistaken entirely as to what the beast, 
image, and mark are, as I have shown. 

2. According to their own showingj they have bee^ 


preaching for seventy years against a thing which does not 
exist — the image, which they say is yet to be made! 

3. That part of the message about the torment of the 
wicked, their smoke going up for ever and ever, etc., they 
never preach, for it is just what they don't believe. 

4. Their egotistical claim that they are the only ones 
who ''keep the commandments of God," is shown to be^alse 
in Chapter XX. 

5. There are six angels mentioned in Kev. 14. If the 
first three represent messages of warning, then the other 
three do also; and, hence, there are yet three messages more 
to come after the Third Angel's message! What do Ad- 
ventists have to say about these ? Nothing. 

These few brief points are sufficient to show that their 
application of the three messages is entirely wrong. 


Seventh-Day Adventists claim that "the seal of God ih 
\iis Holy Sabbath." Thoughts on Revelation, page 452. 
They are now sent to "seal" the 144,000 of Rev. 7: 1-8 
ready for translation. Not a soul living on earth when 
Jesus comes will be saved, unless he is thus sealed by keep- 
ing that day. Early Writings, page 11. 

1. Does the Bible say that the Sabbath is the seal of 
God ? No; this is another Adventist assumption which they 
claim to prove by a long, round-about, far-fetched set of 
inferences. It takes one of their ablest speakers an hour to 
make it appear even plausible when he has no opposition. 
Even then few can see through it. 

2. The word "seal," as a noun and a verb, is used sixty- 
five times in the Bible, but not once is it said to be the 

8. They argue that sign and seal are synonymous terms, 
meaning the same thing; and as> the Sabbath is called a 


sign (Ex. 31: 17), it is therefore a seal. To this I object, 
because (1) Seal is nevei defined by the word sign^ nor sign 
\iy the word seal; nor is one term ever given as the synonym 
for the other. I have carefully examined fourteen difierent 
dictionaries, lexicons and cyclopedias, and find no exception 
to this statement. (2) The original term for seal (Hebrew, 
chotJiam; Greek, sjphragis) is never rendered sign. (3) The 
original word for sign (Hebrew, otli; Greek, semeion) is 
never rendered seal. Hence they are not synonymous 

4. Rom. 4: 11 is used to prove that a sign is a seal; but 
it does not prove it. Anything may be put to two entirely 
difierent uses, as I may use my cane for a stafl' or for a 
pointer, but is therefore a stafi* and a pointer the same ? No. 
So in Rom. 4: 11, circumcision w^as used as a sign and also 
as a seal; but this does not prove that a sign is a seal. So 
the Sabbath is a sign. Ex. 31: IT. Possibly God might 
also use it as a seal, but does he ? Where is the proof ? 

5. The Sabbath was a sign between God and the chil- 
dren of Israel. Ex. 31: 17. So was circumcision. Rom. 
4: 11. But neither is a sign to Christians. 

6. The Sabbath was abolished at the cross. Col. 2: 16. 
Hence it cannot be God's seal now. 

7. If the Sabbath is God's seal with which he seals his 
people for translation, then every one who has the Sabbath 
is sealed and ready for translation. When God puts his 
seal upon a man, that must settle it that he is God's. So in 
Rev. 7: 2-4, where the angel sealed a man with the seal of 
God, did he not thereby become one of the 144,000 who 
were ^'without fault?" Rev. 14: 1-5. Yes. Then, if the 
Sabbath is the seal, all who keep it are sealed and ready for 
Heaven. But (1) the old Pharisees all kept the Sabbath 
strictly; (2) millions of Jews keep it now; (3) all Seventh- 


Day Baptists keep it; (4) the Marion party, who bitterly 
oppose Seventh-Day Adventists, all keep it; (5) many 
Seventh-Day Adventists keep it who have been expelled 
from their churches for their sins. Are all these sealed and 
ready for salvation ? No. Then the Sabbath as a seal, as 
the proof of God's favor, as a test of character and fitness 
for Heaven, fails entirely. Hence, it cannot be God's seal. 

What, then, is God's seal ? It is plainly stated to be the 
Holy Spirit. Thus: "Who hath also sealed us, and given 
the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts." 11. Cor. 1: 22. 
"In whom also, after that ye believed, ye were sealed with 
that Holy Spirit of promise." Eph. 1: 13. "And grieve 
not the Holy Spirit of God, whereby ye are sealed unto the 
day of redemption." Eph. 4: 30. These texts are plain 
enough as to what the seal of the Lord is. It is the Holy 
Spirit. Strange that men will set aside these plain texts, 
and try by long, uncertain arguments to make out that the 
old Jewish Sabbath is the seal, when the Bible never says a 
word about it. 

Adventists argue that the Sabbath is the seal to the deca- 
logue. They say there is nothing else in the Ten Command- 
ments to tell who gave that law. The assertion is utterly 
false. The very first words of the decalogue tell who gave 
it: "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the 
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt 
have no other gods before me." Ex. 20: 2, 3. This tells 
as plainly as possible who gave that law, and cuts up by the 
roots the Advent argument on the seal. Now look at 
their " Law of God " chart. These words as God put 
them are left off ! If left on they would clearly contra- 
dict the Advent argument. 



Seventh-Day Adventists make everything turn upon theit 
view of the sanctuary. It is vital with them. If they are 
wrong on this, their whole theory breaks down. The 
reader should, therefore, study this subject carefully. They 
dwell upon it constantly, and affirm that they are the only 
ones in all Christendom who have the light on the subject. 
I will devote only a few pages to it, just enough to show the 
fallacy of their system. 

They based their time of 1844 upon Dan. 8: 14. *'Unto 
two thousand and three hundred days, then shall the sanc- 
tuary be cleansed." The sanctuary was the earth. It was 
to be cleansed by fire at the second advent. The 2300 days 
ended in 1844. Hence, Christ must come that year. They 
proved it all by the Bible; so there could be no mistake, 
they said. But Christ didn't come. Now what ? Fanaticism 
dies hard, positive men don't like to yield. So they now 
find that the sanctuary does not mean the earth at all, as 
they had said, but a real building in heaven, just like the 
tabernacle which Moses built. That was a tent with two 
rooms, the holy place, containing the table, candlestick, and 
golden altar; the Most Holy, containing the ark, in which 
were the tables of stone, and over which was the mercy seat 
and cherubim. See Heb. 9: 1-7. The priests ministered 
in the first place every day in the year, but only the high 
priest went into the Most Holy, and he only on the last day 
of the year. Lev. 16. On that day he cleansed the sanctu- 
ary of the sins confessed there during the year. All this 



was a type of just such a building in heaven, where Christ 
ministers. Heb. 8:1-5; 9: 1-9, 24. In 1844 he left the first 
place and entered the Most Holy to cleanse the heavenly 
sanctuary, which, really, is the judgment. This explains 
their disappointment. Jesus went into the Most Holy of 
the heavenly sanctuary to begin the judgment in 1844, in- 
stead of coming to the earth, as they first expected and 
preached! To prove all this they make long, inferential 
arguments, which are open to objections from all sides. 

1. Do the Adventists Icnow that they are right about this 
question ? No. 

2. If this subject is as plain and as important as they say 
it is, it is strange that nobody ever found it out before. 

3. After being perfectly familiar with their view of it, 
and knowing all their arguments, I feel sure they are mis- 
taken about it. 

1. God sent the Adventists with a last solemn message 
to earth upon which the destiny of the church and the world 
depended. The very first thing they did was to get the 
wrong year, '43 instead of '44. Then, when they got that 
fixed up, instead of announcing the real event to take place, 
the change in Christ's work in the sanctuary in heaven, they 
said he was to come to earth, raise the dead, and burn the 
world, when nothing of the kind was to occur ! 

2. Not one in fifty of the original Adventists ever found 
out the real mistake they had made. Not even one of the 
leading Adventists, like Miller, Himes, Litch, etc., ever 
accepted this sanctuary explanation. Only a mere handful 
out of the great mass of 1844 Adventists found out the 
truth about the sanctuary, and these were men of no note 
in Miller's work. 

3. Miller himself opposed the Seventh-Day Adventists' 
move, rejecting the idea of the sanctuary, the Sabbath, and 
the third angel's message. What a hopeless tangle that 


Advent work was ! No wonder people rejected it. What 
if Moses had opposed Joshua, and John the Baptist had 
opposed Christ? Miller was sent to do a work, got it 
wrong, and then opposed those who did finally get it right ! 

4. Instead of receiving the "light" on the sanctuary 
question from Mrs. White's visions, or from heaven, they 
got it from O. R. L. Crosier. But he soon gave it all u[) 
as an error, and has opposed the Seventh-Day Adventists 
for many years. It looks badly for a theory when its very 
authors renounce it. 

5. Seventh-Day Adventists at first adopted the sanctuary 
theory to prove that the door of mercy was shut in 1844, a 
theory which Mrs. White and all of them held at that time. 
Here is my proof on this point: 

Ann Arbor, Mich., Dec. 1, 1887. 
Elder D. M. Canright: — "I kept the seventh day nearly 
a year, about 1848. In 1846, I explained the idea of the 
sanctuary in an article in an extra double number of the 
Day Star, Cincinnati, O. The object of that article was to 
support the theory that the door of mercy was shut, a theory 
which I and nearly all Adventists who had adopted William 
Miller's views, held from 1844 to 1848. Yes, I know that 
Ellen G. Harmon — now Mrs. White — held the shut door 
theory at that time." 

Truly yours, O. R. L. Crosier. 

Now listen to Mrs. White: "Topsham, Me., April 21, 
1847. * * * The Lord showed me in vision more than 
one year ago, that Brother Crosier had the true light on the 
cleansing of the sanctuary, etc. , and that it was his will that 
Bro. C. should write out the view which he gave us in the 
Day Star (extra), Feb. 7, 1846. I feel fully authorized by 
the Lord to recommend that extra to every saint. * * *" 
E. a White, in <'A Word to the Little Flock," pages 11, 


12. Here you have the origin and object of that sanctuary 
theory. Before me lies " The Present Truth," Vol. I, No. 6, 
December, 1849, by James White. ''The Shut Door Ex- 
plained," is the leading article, in which it is argued from 
the type Lev. 16: IT, that when the high priest entered the 
Most Holy there could be no more pardon for sin. *'0n 
this day of atonement he is a high priest for those only 
whose names are inscribed on the breast-plate of judgment," 
page 44. No more salvation for sinners, is what their sanc- 
tuary theory was then used to prove. The whole volume is 
full of this idea. 

6. Their argument from the type on this point was right; 
in the type no sin could be confessed and conveyed into the 
sanctuary after the high priest entered the Most Holy. Lev. 
4: 1-7; 16: 17, 23, 24. So if this was a type of the entrance 
of Christ into the Most Holy m heaven in 1844, then truly the 
door of mercy did close there, and all sinners since are lost. 

7. No work whatever was to be done on the day of 
atonement, or day when the sanctuary was cleansed. Lev. 
23: 27-32. The law was very strict. If the Advent argu- 
ment on the sanctuary is correct and the day of atonement 
began in 1844, then they ought not to have worked a day 
since. Hence, many Adventists after 1844 held that it was 
a sin to work; but time starved them out, and they had to 
go at it again. 

8. Finally, being compelled to abandon the position that 
the door of mercy was entirely shut against sinners in 1844, 
they next taught that only those could be saved who knew 
of the change which Christ made in the sanctuary in Heaven 
in 1844. Thus Elder Smith, in ''Objections to the Visions 
Answered," pages 24-26, says: "A knowledge of Christ's 
position and work is necessary to the enjoyment of the ben- 
efits of his mediation. * * * A general idea of his 
work was then (previous to 1844) sufficient to enable men 


to approach unto God by him. * ^ * But when ho 
changed his position (in 1844) to the most Holy place * * * 
that knowledge of his work which had up to that point been 
sufficient, was no longer sufficient. -^ -J?- * Who can find 
salvation now ? Those who go to the Saviour where he is 
and view him by faith in the most Holy place. * * * This 
is the door now open for salvation. But no man can under- 
stand this change without definite knowledge of the subject 
of the sanctuary and the relation of type and anti-type. 
Now they may seek the Saviour as they have before sought 
him, with no other ideas of his position and ministry than 
those which they entertained while he was in the first apart- 
ment; but will it avail them? They cannot find him there. 
That door is shut!" So Mrs. White: "They have no knowl- 
edge of the move made in Heaven, or the way into the most 
Holy, and they cannot be benefited by the intercession of 
Jesus there. * * * They ofier up their useless prayers 
to the apartment which Jesus has left." Spiritual Gifts, 
Vol. I, pages 171, 172. What abominable doctrine! No 
one can be saved unless they know of the change which 
Christ made in Heaven in 1844. But no one except Seventh- 
Day Adventists has the slightest idea of that change. 
Reader, think of this. 

9. But now they have abandoned this view of the sanct- 
uary and hold that all who honestly seek God may be saved 
without any of this "light" on the sanctuary. Thus they 
have already held four difierent positions upon the sanctuary 
question: 1. It was the earth. 2. The door of mercy was 
shut to all sinners in 1844. 3. It was open only to those 
who learned about Christ's change in 1844. 4. It is now 
open to all. What will they hold next ? 

After thoroughly investigating the whole subject of the 
sanctuary, I feel sure that they are in a great error on that 


1. God's throne was always in the most Holy place ol 
the sanctuary, between the cherubim, over the ark, nevei 
once in the Holy place. For proof on this point see Lev. 
16: 2; Num. 7: 89; I. Sam. 4: 4; II. Kings 19: 15. Smith 
argues that God's throne was sometimes in the holy place, 
and refers to Ex. 33: 9. But here the Lord appeared out- 
side the tabernacle, and not in the Holy place at all. So his 
text fails him. 

2. When Jesus ascended to Heaven, eighteen hundred 
years ago, he went directly to the right hand of God and sat 
down on his throne. Heb. 8: 1. Hence, he must have 
entered the most Holy then, instead of in 1844. 

3. ' 'Within the vail" is in the most Holy place. "And 
thou shalt hang up the vail under the taches, that thou may- 
est bring in thither within the vail the ark of the testimony: 
and the vail shall divide unto you between the YloXy place 
and the most Holy." Ex. 26: 33. Also see Lev. 16: 2, 
12, 13. 

None can fail to see that ''within the vail" is in the most 
Holy place where the ark was. This is just where Jesus 
went eighteen hundred years ago. Proof: "Which hope 
we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast, 
and which entereth into that within the vail; whither the 
forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus made a high priest 
for ever." Heb. 6: 19, 20. As the high priest went "with- 
in the vail," so Jesus, our high -priest, went "within the 
vail," into the most Holy place, to the right hand of God 
and sat down on his throne. Nothing could be more plainly 
seated. This upsets the whole Advent theory of 1844. For 
further proof see Ex. 27: 21; 30: 6; 40: 22-26; Lev. 4: 6, 17; 
16: 15; 24: 3; Num. 18: 7; Matt. 27: 51. 

4. "Before the throne," Eev. 8: 3. Elder Smith asserts 
that "the throne of God was in the first apartment of the 
sanctuary," because it is said that the seven lamps and the 


golden altar were "before the throne," Rev. 4: 5; 8: 3. It 
is a desperate cause which seizes upon such proof. The 
same argument would prove that the ark and God's throne 
were always in the first apartment of the earthly sanctuary, 
which we know to be false. As there was only a vail which 
divided the holy from the most holy, where God's throne 
was, things in the holy place were said to be ''before the 
Lord," as they were so near to the throne, which was just 
behind the curtain. Proof: Ex. 27: 20, 21; 30: 6-8; 40: 
23-25; Lev. 4: 6, 15-18. Even outside of the tabernacle 
entirely, where the beasts were killed, was "before the 
Lord," as Lev. 4: 15 shows. Abraham walked "before the 
Lord," Gen. 24: 40, yet he was on earth, and the Lord was 
in heaven. 

5. Not a single text can be found in all the Bible where 
the ark and cherubim and throne were in the holy place of 
the earthly sanctuary, the type; yet in the antitype they 
have the throne of God in the holy place, not on some spe- 
cial occasion, but all the time for 1800 years, just contrary 
to the type ! 

6. Adventists always assume and say that "the temple 
of God is the most Holy place." Sanctuary, page 234, by 
U. Smith. But this is false. The most Holy place, or the 
oracle, was a rooin in the temjple^ but it was not the temple 
itself. In fact the Scriptures carefully distinguish between 
the temple and the oracle or most Holy. See I. Kings 
6: 5, 16, IT, 19, 23; Y: 50. The temple was the house, the 
whole building. I. Kings 7: 50; H. Kings 11: 13; I. Sam. 
3: 3; Matt. 21: 12; Luke 1: 9; Rev. 11: 19. 

7. When was the temple in heaven opened, Rev. 11: 19 ? 
Adventists use this text to prove that the most holy place in 
the heavenly sanctuary was not opened till 1844. But it 
fails them: 1. Because, as we have proved above, the tem- 
ple is not the most holy place, but the whole building. 2. 


Because the heavenly temple was opened when Christ began 
his ministry there, 1800 years ago. Heb. 8: 1, 2; 9: 8-12. 
3. Because verse 19 of Rev. 11 properly belongs with Rev. 
12, and begins that new line of prophecy, instead of closing 
the line in Chapter 11. The Syriac thus divides it. Clarke, 
Barnes, Scott, and every commentator I have consulted, 
connects this verse with Chapter 12 as the introduction. 
Says Scott: "V. 19. — This verse introduces a new subject, 
and should have been placed at the beginning of the next 
chapter.'' Certainly; for when was the temple in heaven 
opened ? When Jesus went there to begin his ministry, of 
course, Heb. 9: 8-12. Thus fails the main pillar of the Ad- 
ven lists' sanctuary theory. 

Thus far I have argued on their own grounds that there is 
a real building up in heaven, just like the sanctuary on 
earth. But that whole thing is extremely questionable. 

1. As children are taught moral truths by object lessons, 
so God taught the Jews spiritual truths by the object les- 
sons of the types of their worship. Hence, it does not fol- 
low that in Christian worship there must be just such material 
things used up in heaven. Rather the presumption is 
against it. 

2. The whole temple service was for the Aaronic priest- 
hood; but Christ is not a priest after the order of Aaron, 
but is after that of Melchisedic, Heb. 7: 11. Melchisedic 
had no temple nor temple service, so Christ should have 
none. From Adam till Moses there was no temple nor 
priestly service in heaven. Smith admits this. ' ' There 
were no holy places laid open, and no priestly work was 
established in heaven." Sanctuary, page 238. Exactly; 
for that was under the Melchisedic priesthood, just as now. 
If no temple was needed there for 4000 years, none is needed 
there now. 

3. Paul directly states that the typf s gf the law were 


" NOT the very image of the things" they represent, Heb. 
10: 1. But Adventists make their argument on the assump- 
tion that they were exact images of things in heaven, thus 
ignoring Paul's statement. 

4. Paul says that Chiist is a minister of a greater and 
more perfect tabernacle, Heb. 9: 11. Then it must difler 
from the earthly one. 

6. Paul says it is one '-not made with hands," Heb. 9:11. 
This shows that it is not a material building. 

6. Paul says that Jesus' flesh is the vail, Heb. 10: 20. 
This shows that the temple was only figurative. 

7. Scarcely one of the types had an antitype just like it. 
Thus lambs and oxen were the type of which Jesus was the 
antitype. But he was a Tnan and they were heasts. The 
bodies of those beasts were hurned^ Heb. 13: 11, 12, but 
Christ, the antitype, was not burned. They were slain at the 
door of the sanctuary. Lev. 17: 3, 4, but Jesus was not slain 
jX the door of any sanctuary. Their blood was carried into 
the temple and put on the altar. Lev. 4: 6, 7, but the blood 
of Christ was spilt on the ground. The Levitical priests 
made offerings daily, but Christ only once for all, Heb. 9: 
25, 26, 28; 10: 10, 12, 14. * 'Elder Smith says: 'The fact 
that Moses made two apartments in his likeness of the heav- 
enly temple is a demonstration that the latter has two apart- 
ments also.' Again: 'The Priests here on earth, in both 
apartments, served unto the example of a like service in 
heaven. Now Jesus is the only priest in heaven, and he 
must pel-form this 'like service.' The earthly priests offered, 
every day, the morning and evening sacrifice, sprinkling the 
blood of fresh-slain victims in the outer sanctuary. So for 
more than eighteen hundred years, Jesus, according to Mr. 
Smith, must have offered his own fresh-shed blood in the 
outer apartment of the heavenly sanctuary twice every day; 
that is more than thirteen hundred thousand times from his 


ascension to 1844. This is the logical result of Mr. Smith's 
'demonstration.' The apostle says, Heb. 7: 27: 'This he 
did once for all, when he offered up himself.' Thus the 
' demonstration' flatly contradicts the scriptures." G. W. 
Morton. The law regulating the service of the priests and 
the temple was changed, Heb. 7: 12. Then certainly it is 
not carried out in heaven now. Adventists would have the 
whole Levitical law of the sanctuary service transferred to 
heaven and carried out there ! This is the absurdity of their 
system. In Heb. 7: 11-28 Paul marks many points of dif- 
ference between the types and the antitypes. The table of 
the Lord was in the temple in the Jewish age, Mai. 1: 7, but 
now the Lord's table is in the church, I. Cor. 10: 21; 11: 20. 
The seven lamps in the temple of heaven "are the seven 
spirits of God," Rev. 4:5. Then they are not literal lamps. 
So it is more than probable that none of the things mentioned 
as being there are literal. In one place it is said that the 
saints in heaven are "clothed in white robes," Rev. 7: 9, but 
in another place this is explained to be the righteousness of 
saints, Rev. 19: 8. 

In Rev. 8: 3 it is said that the prayers of all saints are 
offered upon the golden altar. Most evidently this is not to 
be taken literally, but only as a reference to the Jewish mode 
of worship. Col. 2: 16, 17, says that the meats, drinks, 
feast days, new moons and Sabbath days were a shadow of 
Christ. Reasoning as the Adventists do about the earthly 
sanctuary, Heb. 8: 5, we would expect to And something in 
the gospel exactly like them, meats, drinks, yearly feast 
days, monthly holy days, etc. But where are they ? In the 
gospel there is nothing at all just like these types. 

Paul says directly that the place into which Jesus went was 
" heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us," 
Heb. 9: 24. The simple truth of the whole matter is that 
the age of types, object lessons, exact forms, set ceremonies, 


consecrated places and holy vessels — all this ended at the 
cross, Col. 2: 17. The answer of Jesus to the woman at the 
well is exactly to the point. She said: "Our fathers wor- 
shiped in this mountain; and ye say that in Jerusalem is the 
place w^here men ought to worship. Jesus saith unto her, 
Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, w^hen ye shall neither 
in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father. 
* * * But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true 
worshipers shall w^orship the Father in spirit and in truth: 
for the Father seeketh such to w^orship him. God is a spirit; 
and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in 
truth." John 4: 20-24. Under the gospel one place is no 
more holy than another. With the holy places went all the 
holy vessels, sacrifices, incense, tables of stone, and all. 
Peter states it all in a w^ord: *'Ye also, as lively stones, are 
built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to ofier up 
spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 
r. Pet. 2: 5. To the same efiect, Eph. 2: 20-22; I. Cor. 6: 
19. Now w^e are under a new covenant; Heb. 8: 6-13, an 
high priest of a new order, Heb. 7: 11, we come to God by 
a new w^ay, Heb. 10: 20, by new ordinances, Mark 15: 15-16; 
I. Cor. 11: 23-26, by a difierent temple, and a better sacri- 
fice. Hence, there is no need of a temple in heaven just like 
the old Jewish one. 

The Adventists idea of the sanctuary in heaven is an ab- 
surdity. In Early Writings, pages 114, 115, Mrs. White 
was taken to heaven and shown all about it. She saw the 
building exactly like the one on earth. In it w^as the candle- 
stick, the table of show-bread, the altar, the curtains, the 
ark; and "in the ark were tables of stone containing the 
Ten Commandments." Think, now; what use for a literal 
candle in the immediate presence of God whose glory is 
above the light of the sun. "They need no candle, neither 
light of the sun, for the Lord God giveth them light." Rev. 


22: 5. And what use for a literal table of show-bread there? 
Do the angels or the Lord eat the bread ? Then real tables 
of stone in Heaven! and the Lord sitting on the ark over 
them! What puerile ideas. Hear Paul veto that idea: 
''Not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart." 
IL Cor. 3: 3. Then think of the absurdity of having the 
Almighty God and all the "ten thousand times ten thou- 
sand" (one hundred million) angels around his throne, dwell- 
ing in a literal building with curtains, lamps, tables, walls, 
etc. It would need to be larger than a whole State. Let 
Adventists read this: "Howbeit, the Most High dwelleth 
not in temples made with hands." Acts 7: 48. 

' 'But does not Paul say that the Jewish temple was a 
shadow, figure, a pattern of heavenly things, Heb. 8 and 9 ?" 
Yes; and so he says the ofierings and holy days of the old 
covenant were shadows of Christ, Col. 2: 16, 17. But 
where are our feast days, new moons, meats, etc. , under the 
gospel ? Nowhere, only in a spiritual sense. So Paul says 
the earthly temple w^as only a ^^figure^^ of a "tabernacle not 
made with hands." Heb. 9: 9, 11. How could he say 
more plainly that the heavenly are not literal ? Did Christ 
minister in a literal temple in heaven from Adam till the 
cross, four thousand years ? No. Did Melchisedec have a 
temple? No. Gen. 14: 18-20. As Christ is a priest 
after his order, he needs no literal temple. According to 
the Adventists, the most Holy place of the heavenly sanctu- 
ary w^as entirely empty and unoccupied from the ascension 
of Jesus till 1844. Even Christ did not enter it once! 
Finally, their whole argument on the sanctuary depends 
upon proving that the seventy weeks of Dan. 9 are a part 
of the twenty-three hundred days of Dan. 8: 14. But does 
the Bible say they are ? No; nor can they prove it. The 
very best they can claim is to make it plausible that they are 



Seventh-Day Adventists regard Mrs. White as a proph- 
etess and her writings as inspired. They make long argu- 
ments from the Bible to prove that there should be gifts, 
miracles and prophets in the church. But these are the same 
arguments used by Mormons, Shakers, etc. , in favor of their 
churches. They do not touch the case. The question is not, 
Can the Lord inspire men and women? but. Has he so in- 
spired Mrs. White? The New Testament repeatedly warns 
us against accepting false prophets. ''Beware of false 
prophets," Matt. 7: 15. "There shall arise false Christs and 
false prophets," Matt. 24: 24. "Believe not every spirit. 
* * * Many false prophets are gone out into the world." 
1 John, 4: 1. 

In every generation many have arisen claiming to be 
prophets. All have found followers more or less. All they 
have to do is to firmly believe in themselves and make ex- 
travagant claims and they will soon have followers. Let us 
notice a few prominent ones near our own times. 


He was born in Stockholm, Sweden, 1688, and died in 
1772. His father was a nobleman of high standing. Hence 
Swedenborg was highly educated and moved in the highest 
society. He traveled extensively, and conversed with the 
most learned men of the age. The king appointed him to 
a high office, which he filled with great acceptance for over 



thirty years. He rose to eminence in science and wrote 
seventy-seven books, covering every branch of science. He 
was a favorite with the king and royal family. He was of 
the purest character and devoutly religious. 

swedenborg's rules of life. 

1. Often to read and meditate on the Word of God. 

2. To submit in everything to the will of Divine Provi- 

3. To observe in everything a propriety of behavior, and 
to keep the conscience clear. 

4. To discharge with fidelity the functions of my em- 
ployment, and the duties of my office, and to render myself 
in all things useful to society. 

Not a stain rests upon his moral character. 

At the age of fifty-five he began to have visions of heaven, 
hell, angels, and the spiritual world. He says: "I have 
been called to a holy office by the Lord himself, who most 
mercifully appeared to me, his servant, in the year 1743, 
when he opened my sight into the spiritual world and en- 
abled me to converse with spirits and angels." Exactly like 
what Mrs. White claims. This work he continued for thirty 
years, and wrote about thirty inspired volumes. He made 
most remarkable predictions, which were exactly fulfilled it 
is claimed. 

He founded a new religion based upon his revelations. 
The Bible is sacredly taught and holy living enjoined. 

This church has steadily increased, till it has societies in 
all parts of the world and in the leading languages. They 
publish three weeklies, five monthly journals, and one quar- 
terly, besides many books. He got the start of Mrs. 
White just one hundred years. His followers believe in 
him just as implicitly as hers do in her, and are very zealous 
in propagating their faith. In many respects both moves 


are much alike. The above is condensed from Schaff-Hei'^ 
zog's Encyclopedia. 


These are so well known in America that I need say but 
little about them. Ann Lee, their leader, was born in Eng- 
land, in 1736; died, 1784. Like Mrs. White, "she received 
no education." She joined a society who were having 
remarkable religious exercises, and soon began "to have 
visions and make revelations," which, just like Mrs. White, 
she called "testimonies." '^Henceforth she claimed to be 
directed by revelations and visions." Schaff-Herzog Ency- 
clopedia, article "Ann Lee." She was accepted as leader 
and as "the second appearing of Christ." Like Mrs. 
White, she required a "peculiar kind of dress," "opposed 
war and the use of pork." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article 
"Shakers." They have no intercourse with other churches; 
are renowned for their purity and devotion. They number 
about 8,000. A careful comparison shows many points of 
similarity between Mrs. Lee and Mrs. White. The main 
evidence upon which Adventists rely for proof of Mrs. 
White's inspiration is the purity of her life and the high 
moral and religious tone of her writings. They say her 
revelations must either be of God or Satan. If of Satan 
they would not teach such purity and holiness. The same 
reasoning will prove Mrs. Lee also a true prophetess, for 
she exceeds Mrs. White in this line, so that "Shaker" has 
become a synonym for honesty. Adventists, please note 
this point. 


She was born in England in 1750, of poor parents, and 
was wholly uneducated. She worked as a domestic servant 
till over forty years of age. She joined the Methodists in 


1790. In 1792 she announced herself as a prophetess, and 
* 'published numerous [over sixty] pamphlets setting forth 
her revelations. " Johnson's Cyclopedia, article ' 'Southcott. '' 
She had trances the same as Mrs. White does, and an- 
nounced the speedy advent of Christ. See Encyclopedia 
Americana, article "Southcott." She carried on a lucrative 
trade in the sale of her books as Mrs. White does. Strange as 
it may appear, many learned ministers believed in her, and 
thousands joined her followers, till in a few years they num- 
bered upwards of one hundred thousand! She made many 
predictions, w^hich her followers claimed were fulfilled. 
*'The faith of her followers, among whom were several 
clergymen of the established church, rose to enthusiasm." 
Encyclopedia Americana, article "Southcott." 

She "regarded herself as the bride of the Lamb, and 
declared herself, when sixty-four years of age, pregnant 
with the true Messiah, the 'second Shilo,' whom she would 
bear Oct. 19, 1814. * * * * Joanna died in her 
self delusion Dec. 27, 1814; but her followers, who 
at one time numbered a hundred thousand^ continued 
till 1831 to observe the Jewish Sablath^ Schafi*-Herzog 
Encyclopedia. "A post mortem examination showed that 
she had been suffering from dropsy. " Johnson's Cyclopedia. 
"Death put an end to both her hopes and her fears. With 
her followers, however, it was otherwise; and, though for a 
time confounded by her decease, which they could scarcely 
believe to be real, her speedy resurrection was confidently 
anticipated. In this persuasion many lived and died, nor 
is her sect yet extinct." Encyclopedia Americana, article 

Let candid people consider these facts. This movement 
occurring only thirty years before Mrs. White's work, was 
in several respects like the present Seventh-Day Adventist 
move. An illiterate woman is the leader. She has visions, 


writes numerous pamphlets and revelations and predicts 
the speedy advent of Christ. Her honesty is plainly mani- 
fested ; her enthusiasm and that of her followers is great. 
In a short period one hundred thousand accept her " testi- 
monies.'* The present Seventh -Day Adventist move is 
similar in many respects as has already been seen above. 

And here notice the terrible tenacity of fanaticism when 
once started. When Joanna died we would have supposed 
that all sane persons would have given it up ; but they fix 
it up some way and go right on, and there they are now. 
So with the followers of Mrs. White. No matter what 
blunders or failures she makes, they fix them up some way 
and go right on. They will do it after she is dead and gone. 


This prophet and his visions and revelations are so well- 
known that I mention them briefly. Smith was born in 1805, 
and died in 1844, the year before Mrs. White began her rev- 
elations. He came out in a great religious awakening, as 
Mrs. White did in the Advent move of 1843-4. In 1823 
he also began to have " visions " and " revelations " and 
see angels. The second advent of Christ was at hand, he 
said, hence the name, " Latter day saints." His mission 
was to introduce " the new dispensation." They are the 
" saints," and all the other churches are " heathen," or 
Gentiles. Mrs. White's followers are the saints ; all other 
churches are " Babylon " and apostate. 

The proof of their inspiration outstrips Mrs. White. 
They work many miracles, as they strongly assert, have 
the gift of tongues, and can show many predictions 
strikingly fulfilled. I have met them frequently, seen 
Smith's son, and know them well. They also have a new 
Bible, a new revelation, have started a new sect, and will 
have nothing to do with others, but proselyte from all. 


The Mormons began in 1831, about fifteen ^^ears before 
Seventh-Day Adventists did : but they number six hun- 
dred thousand, more than five times as many as Ad- 
ventists. Adventists claim that they must be the true 
church because they are persecuted; but Mormons have been 
persecuted a thousand fold more. Smith and others were 
killed; many have been whipped, tarred and feathered, rot- 
ten-egged, stoned, mobbed, run out of town, and outlawed. 
So they must be the true church! Seventh-Day Adventists 
have suflfered no persecution. Not one of them has ever 
been whipped, or stoned, or egged, or tarred and feathered, 
or mobbed, or killed. Persecution! They have no idea 
what it is and never will though they are anxious to pose as 
great martyrs. 


Mrs. E. G. White, wife of the late Elder White, leader 
of the Seventh-Day Adventists, claims to be divinely in- 
spired as w^ere the prophets of the Bible. This claim is ac- 
cepted by the whole denomination. They defend her 
inspiration as earnestly as they do that of the Bible. Year 
after year, in their State and General Conferences, ironclad 
resolutions have been unanimously adopted, [endorsing her 
revelations in the strongest manner. 

Time and again 1 have seen these resolutions adopted by a 
rising vote of the whole congregation, myself with them. 
"The visions of Mrs. E. G. White, a manifestation of 
spiritual Gifts according to the Scriptures," is a book of 144 
pages published by them defending her inspiration. 

They point to her and her visions as the sign and proof 
that they are the only true church. Rev. 12: 17. Hence it 
can be seen that this is a vital subject with them. 

In my debate with the Adventists at Healdsburg, Cal.-. 
Feb. 21-28, 1889, they affirmed this proposition: '^The 


visions of Mrs. E. G. White are revelations from God." 
Her writings are called "'Testimonies.^^ In Testimony No. 
33, just published, she makes this claim for her writings: 
*'In ancient times God spoke to men by the mouth of proph- 
ets and apostles. In these days he speaks to them by the 
Testimonies of his spirit." Page 189. Again: "It is 
hardly possible for men to offer a greater insult to God than 
to despise and reject the instrumentalities [her Testimonies] 
that he has appointed to lead these." Page 208. Notice 
that her '^Testimonies''^ are to lead God's people now. Of her 
inspiration Smith says: ''It comes to us as a divine message; 
it is a ray of light from the throne; it is instruction by the 
Holy Spirit." Keplies to Elder Canright, page 77. 

In the Advent Review^ July 2, 1889, are laid down these, 
''KuLES: 1. We will not neglect the study of the Bible 
and the Testimonies. '''' This illustrates the place they assign 
her writings, viz. , an appendix to the Bible. She occupies 
the same relation to her people that Mrs. Southcott did 
to hers, Ann Lee to the Shakers, and Joe Smith to the 

Among themselves they quote her as we do Paul. A text 
from her writings is an end of all controversy in doctrine 
and discipline. It is common to hear them say that when 
they give up her visions they will give up the Bible too, and 
they often do. 

Her visions, or "testimonies," as they are called, are so 
inseparably connected with the whole Seventh-Day Adventist 
doctrine that a person cannot consistently accept the one 
without accepting the other. Besides, they are so constantly 
urged upon their people in every possible Avay , that a person 
cannot long feel comfortable among them unless he, too, ac- 
cepts them. Any one who rejects or opposes them is 
branded as a rebel fighting against God. Thus Mrs. White 
herself says: "If you lessen the confidence of God's peo- 


pie in the testimonies he has sent them, you are rebelling 
against God as certainly as were Kora, Dathan and Abiram. " 
Testimony No. 31/page 62. She claims that every line she 
writes, even in a private letter, is directly inspired by God 
— "the precious rays of light shining from the throne," 
page 63. Of her own words she says: "It is God, and not 
an erring mortal, that has spoken," Testimonies, Vol. Ill, 
page 257. She states over and over that those who doubt or 
oppose her are fighting against God, sinning against the 
Holy Ghost. Thus: "fighting the Spirit of God. Those 
* * * who would break down our testimony, I saw, are 
not fighting against us, but against God," page 260. I could 
quote scores of passages like these. 

These inspired writings now embrace forty bound 
volumes. Thus they have another Bible, just the same as 
the Mormons have. They have to read our old Bible in the 
light of this new Bible. Any interpretation of the Bible 
found in these "testimonies" settles its meaning beyond 
further dispute. She says: "I took the precious Bible and 
surrounded it with the several testimonies to the church," 
vol. 2, page 605. Exactly; and by the light of these "testi- 
monies" that old Bible must now be read. She continues: 
"God has, through the testimonies, simplified the great 
truths already given. " Yes, we must now take the Bible as 
thus simplified by her! Swedenborg, Mrs. Southcott, Ann 
Lee, Joseph Smith and Mrs. White have each done the same 
thing — had a new revelation, written inspired books, and 
started a new sect with a new religion. 

There is not a doctrine nor a practice of the church, from 
the observance of the Sabbath to the washing of feet, upon 
which she has not written. That settles it. No further in- 
vestigation can be made on any of these matters, only to 
gather evidence and construe everything to sustain it. How, 
then, can their ministers or people be free to think and in- 


vestigate for themselves? They can not, dare not, and do 
not. How often I have seen some intelligent thought ex- 
tinguished with this remark: "That contradicts Sister 
White." This ends the matter. Everything she writes, 
w^hether in a private letter or newspaper article, is inspired. 
Thus: "God was speaking through clay. * * * In 
these letters which I write, in the testimonies I bear, I am 
presenting to you that which the Lord has presented to me. 
I do not write one article in the paper expressing merel}' my 
own ideas. They are what God has opened before me in 
vision — the precious rays of light shining from the throne." 
Testimony No. 31, page 63. There you have it, simon pure: 
every word she WTites is a ray of light from the throne of 
God. Reject that, and you are rejected of God. 

Thus it will be seen that Mrs. White claims the very 
highest inspiration, the voice of God speaking directly 
through her. Her followers contend that she must either 
be a true prophetess or else a hypocrite; but she is neither. 
Few are aw^are of what a pow^erful influence an excited 
religious imagination will have over a person. Enthusiasts 
and fanatics are generally honest people. Mrs. White is 
simply a religious enthusiast self-deceived. This I shall 
prove by stubborn facts. 

I long studied Mrs. White to determine for myself her 
real character till her case is clear to my own mind. Natur- 
ally^ religious, young in years, uneducated, sickly, she was 
carried aw ay in the Millcrite excitement of 1840-44. Her 
fits she accepted as the power of God. Encouraged and 
sustained by her husband, this thought grew to be a reality 
to her. A careful study of her writings shows that each 
year she has become a Little stronger in her claims of in- 
spiration till now she asserts that all her utterances, even 
in a letter, or in a sermon, are inspired. She claims that 
her dreams, her impressions of mind are all the voice of Q*^*^ 


to her. She devotes 38 pages of her Testimony Ko. 33 to 
vindicating her own high inspiration. Probably she has 
some way of fixing up her mistakes, contradictions and de- 
ceptions satisfactory to herself. So now anything she can 
learn in any way, any impression of mind, any thought 
clear to herself, is the Spirit speaking to her. I have no 
doubt that she believes it. She is more deceived than her 
followers, for many of them privately doubt her inspir- 
ation while publicly defending it. 

That she is not inspired is plainly shown by many facts. 
She has never wrought a single miracle. The old prophets 
and the apostles wrought miracles freely, to prove that God 
had sent them. In all these seventy years, in all her forty 
volumes, not a single prediction has she ever made that has 
come to pass. This is astonishing, considering that she 
dwells almost wholly in predictions. It seems as though 
she ought to have blundered into many things which could 
afterward be construed into a fulfilled prophecy. But not 
one can be found. This shows how wild and utterly wron^ 
her theories have been. 

She says in "Spiritual Gifts," Vol. II, page 293: "I am 
just as dependent upon the Spirit of the Lord in relating or 
writino^ a vision as in havino^ a vision.'" Here she claims 
that the very words in which her visions are recorded are of 
divine inspiration. But I know that the words in her writ- 
ten "testimonies" are not inspired; for — 

1. When writing them out she will often change what 
she has written, and write it very difierently. I have seen 
her scratch out a whole page, or a line, or a sentence, and 
write it over difierently. If God gave her the words, why 
did she scratch them out and alter them? 

2. I have repeatedly seen her sit with pen in hand and 
read her manuscript to her husband for hours, while he sug- 
gested many changes, which she made. She would scratch 



«mt her own words and put in his, somtimes whole sentences. 
Was he inspired, too? 

3. As she is ignorant of grammar, of late years she has 
employed an accomplished writer to take her manuscript 
and correct it, improve its wording, polish it up, and put it 
in popular style, so her books will sell better. Thousands 
of words, not her own, are thus put in by these other per- 
sons, some of whom were not even Christians. Are their 
words inspired, too? 

4. She often copies her subject matter without credit or 
sign of quotation, from other authors. Indeed her last 
book, * 'Great Controvers}^," which they laud so highly as 
her greatest work, is largely a compilation from Andrew's 
History of the Sabbath, History of the Waldenses by 
Wylie, Life of Miller by White, Thoughts on Kevelation by 
Smith, and other books. 

This she pretends was all revealed to her directly from 
heaven. It is not something she has heard or read or 
studied out, but it is what God has revealed to her by the 
Holy Ghost. Stubborn facts shows that her claim is utterly 
false and her book a deception the same as the Book of 
Mormon, which Smith stole from Spaulding. 

The Pastor's Union of Healdsburg, Cal. , investigated the 
matter and published many examples out of hundreds where 
she had copied her matter directly from other authors with- 
out anything to show it was copied. They went through 
several works and scores of pages finding the same thing 
all through her book. This proves her guilty of stealing 
her ideas and matter from other authors and putting them 
ofl' on her followers as a revelation from God! 


Several important passages in the first edition of her 
visions have been suppressed in all later ones as they con- 


tradict what Adventists now believe. For thirty years they 
have chafed under this charge of suppression. They have 
denied it, made light of it; and finally the pressure was so 
hard that in 1882, they republished her first visions, claim- 
ing to give them all and word for word. They say: ''No 
changes from the original work have been made." Preface 
to Early Writings, page 4. They also say the work was 
printed "under the author's own eye and with her full ap- 
proval.'- Page 4. They denounce it as a wicked slander to 
say that anything has been suppressed. 

But I have before me the original work entitled, *'A 
Word to the Little Flock," published by Jas. White, 1847; 
also "The Present Truth," August, 1849, containing her 
original visions. Comparing the present edition with the 
original, I find seven different places where from Jwe to thirty 
lines in a place have been cut right out with no sign of 
omission! The suppressed passages are very damaging to 
her inspiration. I will give one short one as an illustration. 
It teaches what they now deny, viz. , that no one could be 
converted after 1844. The suppressed lines are in brackets. 


"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false 
reformations would increase and spread. The reformations 
that were shown me were not reformations from error to 
truth [but from bad to worse, for those who professed a 
change of heart had only wrapped about them a religious 
garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked heart. Some 
appeared to have been really converted, so as to deceive God's 
people, but if their hearts could be seen they would appear 
as black as ever]. My accompanying angel bade me to look 
for the travail of soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, 
but could not see it, for the time for their salvation is past. '^ 
Present Truth, page 22, published August, 1849. 



"I saw that the mysterious signs and wonders, and false 
reformations would increase and spread. The reformations 
that were shown me were not reformations from error to 

"My accompanying angel bade me look for the travail of 
soul for sinners as used to be. I looked, but could not see 
it, for the time for their salvation is past." Page 37, edition 
of 1882. 

Now if they mean to be honest and dare publish these 
suppressed passages, why don't they? They know very well 
what they are; Mrs. White knows what they are; yet the 
book is republished "under her own eye" and all these pas' 
sages left out when it is stated that "no changes from the 
original work have been made." I have both books before 
me now and know the statement to be untrue and so do 
they; yet they keep right on sending it out. 

6. In 1885 all her "testimonies" were republished in four 
volumes, under the eye of her own son and a critical editor. 
Opening hap-hazard to four different pages in Vol. L, 1 
read and compared them with the original publication which 
I have. I found on an average twenty-four changes of the 
words on each page! Her words were thrown out and other 
words put in and other changes made, in some cases so many 
that it was difficult to read the two together. At the same 
rate in the four volumes, there would be 63,720 changes. 

Taking, then, the words which were put in by her husband, 
by her copyist, by her son, by her editors, and those copied 
from other authors, probably they comprise from one-tenth 
to one quarter of all her books. Fine inspiration that is! 
The common reader knows nothing about these damaging 
facts, but I could not avoid knowing them, for I have been 
Trhere I saw it myself. 


MRS. white's mistakes. 

I could fill a volume with proof of her mistakes, for ail 
of her books are full of them. 1 will select but a few. 

The shut door. For several years after 1844, Mrs. White 
had visions saying that probation ended in that year, that 
there was no more salvation for sinners. Of course she has 
to deny this now, but the proof is overwhelmingly against 

1. Seventh-Day Adventists are compelled to admit that 
for some time after 1844 Adventists did hold that proba- 
tion was ended. Even Mrs. White admits it. She says: 
'* After the passing of the time of expectation, in 1844, Ad- 
ventists still believed the Saviour's coming to be very near; 
they held that * * * the work of Christ as man's in- 
tercessor before God had ceased. Having given the warning 
of the judgment near, they felt that their work for the 
world was done, and they lost their burden of soul for the 
salvation of sinners. * * * All this confirmed them in the 
belief that probation had ended, or, as they then expressed it, 
'the door of mercy was shut. ' " Great Controversy, page 
268. This statement of Mrs. White herself is enough to 
settle the point that the Adventists believed "the door of 
mercy was shut" in 1844. Notice here that the "shut 
door" means the end of probation, the close of mercy for 

Mr. Miller for a while advocated the shut door in 1844, 
He says: 

"We have done our work in warning sinners and in try- 
ing to awake a formal church. God in his providence has 
SHUT THE DOOR; we can only stir one another up to be 
patient." Advent Herald^ Dec. 11, 1844. 

Then in the Voice of Truth Feb. 19, 1845, he says: *''I 
have not seen a genuine conversion since." 


Elder G. I. Butler, in the Review and Herald^ March 3, 
1885, says: ^'As the time passed there was a general feeling 
amonfi: ail the earnest believers that their work for the world 
was done." "There can be no question that for months 
after the time passed it was the general sentiment that their 
work of warning the world was over." ''Their burden was 
gone, and they thought their work was done." Yes; that is 
just what they did believe, probation was ended. 

2. I have conversed with several individuals who affirm 
positively that they heard her teach this repeatedly. There 
are many now living who will swear that they heard her 
teach it. 

3. Written testimony. John Megquier, Saco, Me., a 
man noted for his integrity, writes: '*We well know tho 
course of Ellen G. White, the visionist, while in the state of 
Maine. About the first visions she had were at my house in 
Poland. She said that God had told her in vision that the 
door of mercy had closed, and there was no more chance 
for the world." The True Sabbath, by Miles Grant, 
page 70. Mrs. L. S. Burdick, San Francisco, California, 
was well acquainted with Mrs. White. She writes: "I be- 
came acquainted with James White and Ellen Harmon (now 
Mrs White) early in 1845. At the time of my first ac- 
quaintance with them they were in v/ild fanaticism, used to 
sit on the floor instead of chairs, and creep around the 
floor like little children. Such freaks were considered a 
mark of humility. They were not married, but traveling 
together. Ellen was having what was called visions: said 
God had shown her in vision that Jesus Christ arose on the 
tenth day of the seventh month, 1844, and shut the door of 
mercy; had left forever the mediatorial thron-e; the whole 
world was doomed and lost and there never could be another 
ginner saved." L. S. Burdick, "True Sabbath," page 72. O. 
B. L. Crosier kept the Sabbath with them in 1848. He 


writes: '*Ann Arbor, Mien., Dec. 1, 1887. Yes, I know 
that Ellen G. Harmon, now Mrs. White, held the shut doo? 
theory at that date." Then he gives his proof. These 
persons knew the facts and have put their testimony on 

4. The Present Truth^ James White, editor, Oswego, 
N. Y., May, 1850, has an article by the editor on the 
"Sanctuary, 2300 Days, and the Shut Door." Elder White 
says: "At that point of time [1844] the midnight cry was 
given, the work for the world was closed up, and Jesus 
passed into the most holy place. * * * When we came 
up to that point of time, all our sympathy, burden and 
prayers for sinners ceased, and the unanimous feeling and 
testimony was that our work for the world was finished toi • 
ever. * * * He [Jesus] is still merciful to his saints, 
and ever will be; and Jesus is still their advocate and priest; 
but the sinner, to whom Jesus has stretched out his arms 
all the day long, and who had rejected the offers of salva- 
tion, was left without an advocate when Jesus passed from 
the holy place and shut that door in 1844." Any honest 
man can see that the shut door meant no salvation for sinners, 
and this is what Elder White taught in 1850. In a report 
of labor in the Advent Review^ May 15, 1850, Elder White, 
in noticing the death of a sister Hastings, says: "She em- 
braced the Sabbath in 1846, and has ever believed that the 
work of warning the world closed in 1844." 

Again: "Many will point us to one who is said to be con- 
verted, for positive proof that the door is not shut, thus 
yielding the word of God for the feelings of an individual." 
Present Truth, Dec. 1849. This shows that they held to the 
shut door idea for years after 1844. What a fanatical and 
abominable doctrine that was for Christians to teach ! Mrs. 
White was right with them and in full harmony with them 
on this all these years. She had revelations almost daily. 


If they were of God, why did she not correct them in this 
fearful error? Even if she had said nothing confirming this 
delusion, yet the simple fact that she had no revelation con- 
tradicting it during all those years, is enough to destroy her 
claim to inspiration. But the fact is, she taught this error as 
strongly in her visions as the brethren did in their arguments. 

Here are her own words: "March 24, 1849. -x- * •»«• 
I was shown that the commandments of God and the testi- 
mony of Jesus Christ, relating to the shut door, could not 
be separated. * * -5^ I saw that the mysterious signs and 
wonders and false reformations would increase and spread. 
The reformations that were shown me were not reformations 
from error to truth, but from bad to worse, for those who 
professed a change of heart had only wrapped about them a 
religious garb, which covered up the iniquity of a wicked 
heart. Some appeared to have been really converted, so as to 
deceive God's people, but if their hearts could be seen they 
would appear as black as ever. My accompanying angel 
bade me look for the travail of soul for sinners as used to 
be. I looked, but could not see it, for the time for their 
salvation is past." "Present Truth," pages 21-22, published 
August, 1849. 

Here you have the shut door and no mercy for sinners 
just as clear as language can make it. Every candid reader 
knows what it teaches. It is pitiable to see the shifts and 
turns, evasions, dodges, quibbles, if not something worse, 
resorted to on this passage to save Mrs. White's visions. 
But there it stands, to mock at all their efibrts. Here is 
another passage teaching the same doctrine: "It was just 
as impossible for them to get on the path again and go to 
the city, as all the wicked world which God had rejected." 
"A Word to the Little Flock," page 14, published in 1847. 
At this time, then, God had rejected the wicked world — 
shut door, you see. 


Here is another vision in which she teaches the doctrine of 
the shut door in its very worst form, that is that after 1844 
not one ray of light comes from Jesus to the wicked but they 
are all turned over to the devil to whom they now pray in- 
stead of to God. After Jesus left the holy place she says: 
*'I did not see one ray of light pass from Jesus to the care- 
less multitude after he arose and they were left in perfect 
darkness. * * * Satan appeared to be by the throne 
trying to carry on the work of God. I saw them look up 
to the throne and pray, Father give us thy spirit; then 
Satan would breathe upon them an unholy influence." — Early 
Writings, page 46-^7. Not one ray of light comes to sin- 
ners since 1844 but all are left to the Devil! What is the 
use of their denying that she taught this doctrine? She cer- 
tainly did and she knows it. This fact and the bold denial 
of it now, brand her as a false teacher. 

I will briefly notice some other mistakes she has made, 
enough to show that she is wholly unreliable. 

1. For over forty years she, herself, has been constantly 
expecting the end of the world, and it has not come yet. 
This alone ought to open the eyes of all to see that she has 
no knowledge of the future. 

2. Slaves. In 1849 she foretold what would happen 
when Jesus comes, and said: "I saw the pious slave rise in 
triumph and victory and shake ofi* the chains that bound him, 
while his wicked master was in confusion. " Early Writings, 
page 28. But now there are no slaves. She had not then 
dreamed of the abolition of slavery. 

3. Nations angry. "The nations are now getting angry." 
Early Writings, page 29. That was thirty-eight years ago. 
It takes a long time for them to get fighting mad I 

4. Another mistake. ' 'Some are looking too far off for the 
coming of the Lord. " Page 49. That was thirty-eight years 
ago, and no Adventist then looked for time to last ten years. 


6. Another blunder. " The time for Jesus to be in the 
most holy place was nearly finished." Page 49. Jesus went 
there in 1844. Hence, he had then been there six years. 
She saw that the time for him to be there was nearly fin- 
ished, but it has continued sixty years since. A false 
prediction, as any one can see. 

6. A few months only in 1 849. " Now time is almost 
finished, and what we have been [six] years learning, they 
[new converts] will have to learn in a few months.'- 
Page 57. But instead of a few months, they have had 
sixty years 1 

7. She broke the Sabbath for eleven years. Though she 
had vision after vision about the Sabbath, yet for eleven 
years they all began it at six p. M. instead of at sunset as the 
law requires. Lev. 23:32. When they found their mis- 
take, she saw it, too, in vision. She says: "I inquired 
why it had been thus that at this late date we must 
change. " 

Testimony No. 1, page 13. A poor leader she. 


"Jan. 4, 1862, I was shown some things in regard to our 
nation." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 253. All will remem- 
ber the great anxiety and uncertainty of those days. How 
would the war end? Specially were her people anxious, as 
they were non-combatants and liable to the draft. Here was 
an inspired prophetess right in their midst, having abundant 
revelations about the length of women's dresses, what peo- 
ple should eat, etc. What relief to all would have been a 
few short words from heaven about the results of the war. 
The pressure upon her for light was so great that she had to 
say something. So she took her pen and scribbled away 
through thirty-two long pages about the war. At this date 
it is amusing to read it. This "revelation" alone is enough 


to show that she knows absolutely nothing of the future. 
All she wrote was merely a restatement of the popular view 
of the matter at that time. I shall qaote a few sentences as 
samples, "The system of slavery, w^hich has ruined our 
nation, is left to live and stir up another rebellion." Was 
slavery left to stir up another rebellion? Now we know that 
statement was utterly untrue. 

Again. ^'It seemed impossible to have the war conducted 
successfully," page 256. Another failure, for it was con- 
ducted successfully. All can see that her ideas were just 
those generally rife at the time. I have long watched and 
studied her carefully, till I have become satisfied that this is 
always true of her prophesyings — they are wholly moulded 
by the sentiment around her at the time. Here is another: 
*'This nation will yet be humbled into the dust" page 259. 
Was it? No. Again: "When England does declare war, 
all nations will have an interest of their own to serve, and 
there will be general war," page 259. Did anything of this 
kind happen? No; but it is just what all then expected. 
Once more: "Had our nation remained united, it would 
have had strength; but divided, it must fall^^ P^ge 260. 
How it did fall! "I was shown distress and perplexity and 
famine in the land," page 260. Just what all expected then; 
but where was the famine? ' 'It looked to me like an im- 
possibility now for slavery to be done away," page 266. Of 
course it did, for that was just the way it looked to all others 
then. But did it look that way to God? That was the 
question. Was he telling her ? 

She claims that what she writes is not merely her own 
ideas but the mind of God himself. Thus: "1 do not write 
one article in the paper expressing merely my own ideas. 
They are what God has opened before me in vision." Testi- 
mony, No. 31, page 63. This, then, was the way the thing 
looked to God at that time! Again: "Blood has been poured 


out like water, and tu^ naught." Testimony for the Churcn, 
Vol. I, page 367. Was it for naught, ye brave soldiers? Ye 
liberated slaves? Ye freed nation? I could give scores of 
such quotations all through her writings, showing how they 
have failed always and everywhere. 


One of the worst blunders Mrs. White ever made, one 
which plainly showed her fanaticism and that God had 
nothing to do with her work, was the move she made on 
dress. First she wrote: "God would not have his people 
adopt the so-called reform dress," "Testimonies," Vol. I, 
page 421. "If women would wear their dresses so as to 
clear the filth of the streets an inch or two," it would be in 
harmony with their faith, page 424. Four years pass, 
and she again writes: "God would now have his people 
adopt the reform dress," page 525. "Nine inches as nearly 
accords with my views of the matter as I am able to ex- 
press it in inches," page 521. Here are two revelations ex- 
actly opposite as to the style of dress and the length, an 
inch or two, and then nine inches, from the ground is the 
length. What occasioned this change in the mind of the 
Lord? The answer is easy: In the time between the two 
revelations Mrs. AYhite had spent some time at Dr. Jackson's 
"Home," Dansville, N. Y. Here a short dress with pants 
was worn, and she fell in with the idea and soon had a vision 
requiring its adoption as above. That is the whole of it. 
But the dress was a shame and a disgrace and an utter fail- 
ure. Think of a modest woman on the streets with pants 
on, and her dress cut ofi'half way up to the knees! But for 
about eight years Mrs. White pushed that dress with all her 
power, put it on herself as an example, till most of the sisters 
put it on. But it created a terrible commotion. Husbsinds 
Bwore, brothers refused to Vv^alk with their sisters, men 


sneered and boys hooted. Some of the sisters argued, 
some cried, some rebelled, but most submitted. I know, for 
my own wife wore it for eight years — had to. Finally, Mrs. 
White quietly dropped it ofl' herself, and now no one wears 
it. Here they are all living in direct violation of a plain 
revelation from God! Common sense came out ahead of 

If God ever spoke through Mrs. White about anything, 
he did about the dress, requiring the women to wear it. I 
was there and know how she urged it, heard her many times. 
Her Testimonies at the time were full of it. She said: ''I 
have done my duty; I have borne my testimony, and those 
who have heard me and read that which I have 
written, must now bear the responsibility of receiving 
or rejecting the light given. If they choose to venture 
to be forgetful hearers, and not doers of the work, 
they run their own risk, and will be accountable to God !" 
Testimonies, Vol. I, page 525. Yet they have all run the 
risk and laid oS the dress, Mrs. White with the rest. How 
does she get out of it? By all sorts of dodges, by blaming 
everybody but herself. It has been a great stumbling block 
to them. 


Mrs. White originates nothing. In her vision she always 
sees just what she and her friends at the time happen to be- 
lieve and be interested in. Her husband and other leading 
men first accept or study out a theory and talk it till her 
mind is full of it. Then when she is in her trance that is 
just what she sees. One who has been all through the 
Advent work and well knows, says: "The visions have 
brought out no points of faith held by Seventh-Day Ad- 

Mrs. White herself confesses that she is influenced bv others 


in writing her "Testimonies." Thus: pages 138-139. "What 
appeared in Testimony No. 11, concerning the Health Insti- 
tute should not have been given until I was able to write out 
all I had seen in regard to it. * ^ * I yielded my judg- 
ment to that of others and wrote what appeared in No. 11. 
* * I In this I did wrong." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 
563. She here ''lets the cat out of the bag." She made 
Buch a blunder that she was compelled to blame some one 
else for it and so to tell the truth that she was influenced by 
others to do it! Fine inspiration. 

Elder White was well aware of how she was influenced by 
others to see and write as they impressed her to do. Hence 
he was very jealous of having leading men talk anything to 
her alone opposing his views, for he feared she would then 
have a revelation favoring them and opposing him as indeed 
she did towards the last. Thus he wrote me: "The pressure 
has been terribly hard on my poor wife. She has been im- 
pressed very much by Elders Butler and Haskell." Again: 
' 'I think my wife has been more severe than the Lord really 
required her to be in some cases. Satan has taken great ad- 
vantage. * * ^ Elders Butler and Haskel have had an 
influence over her that I hope to see broken. It has nearly 
ruined her. These men must not be supported by our peo- 
ple to do as they have done." James White, Battle Creek, 
May 25, 1881. That shows the confidence which her own 
husband had in her revelations. 


Th€ proof is abundant that Mrs. White's visions are 
merely the result of nervous disease, a complication of 
hysteria, catalepsy and ecstacy. That she honestly believes 
in them herself, I do not doubt. I have personally known 
four other women, aU Seventh-Day xldventists, who likewise 
had visions. All were sincere Christians, and fully believed 


in their own visions. But all were sickly, nervous females, 
and hysterical. Not being encouraged in them, but opposed 
by their ministers, they finally gave them up. In every age 
such cases have been numerous, of whom a few, like Mrs. 
Southcott, Mrs. Ann Lee and Mrs. White, have become 
noted for awhile. 

Medical books and cyclopedias, under the words ^'hys- 
teria," "catalepsy" and ''ecstacy," give a complete descrip- 
tion of Mrs. White's case, as stated by herself and husband. 
This anyone may see by one day's study. My space will 
allow me to give but a few points. 

1. The sex — a female. "The vast preponderance ol 
hysteria in the female sex has given rise to its name. " Kay- 
nold's System of Medicine, article, "Hysteria." So say all 
the authorities. This fits Mrs. White, a female. 

2. The age. "Hysteria is infinitely more common 
among females, beginning usually from fifteen to eighteen 
or twenty years of age." Theory and Practice of Medicine, 
by Koberts, page 399. "In the female sex, hysteria usually 
commences at or about the time of puberty, i. e. , between 
twelve and eighteen years of age." Kaynold's System of 
Medicine, article, Hysteria. Here again it exactly fits the 
case of Mrs White. She had her first vision at the age of 
seventeen. See Testimonies, Vol. I, page 62. "Notwith- 
standing this mode of life, their health does not materially 
deteriorate." Johnson's Cyclopedia, article. Hysteria. So 
with Mrs. White. She has gradually improved in health 
and her visions have as gradually ceased. At first she 
had visions almost daily, but they have grown less fre- 
quent as she grew older and healthier, till after about 
forty-five years of age, since which time she has not aver- 
aged one in five years, and even these are short and light, 
till now she has ceased entirely to have them. Now read 
this; "Hysteria generally attacks women from the age of 


puberty to the decline of the peculiar functions of her sex." 
Johnson's Cyclopedia article, Hysteria. Mrs. White's case 
again, exactly. 

3. The cause. Hysteria, catalepsy, epilepsy and ecstacy 
are all nervous diseases, which sometimes co-exist or alter- 
nate or blend together so it is difficult to distinguish them. 
The causes noted are: *'l. Mental disturbance, especially 
emotional; for example, a sudden fright, prolonged grief or 
anxiety. *2. Physical influences affecting the brain, as a 
hlow ov fall on the head. ^^ Theory and Practice of Medi- 
cine, Roberts, page 393. *'In ten of my cases the disease 
was due to reflex causes, which consisted in six cases of in- 
juries to the head." Fundamental Nervous Disease, Putzel, 
page ^Q. This is Mrs. AVhite again, exactly. At the age of 
nine she received a terrible blow on the face, which broke her 
nose and nearly killed her. She was unconscious for three 
weeks. See her life in Testimony, Vol. I, pages 9-10. This 
shock to her nervous system was the real cause of all the 
visions she afterwards had. 

4. Always weakly and [sickly. *'Most hysterical 
persons are out of health." Theory and Practice of 
Medicine, Roberts, page 404. "Fainting fits, palpitation of 
the heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so 
severe that persons affected with them seem to be dying. " 
Encyclopedia Am'^ricana, article. Hysteria. Now read the 
life of Mrs. While, and she tells it over and over, times 
without number, about fainting frequently, pain at the heart, 
and about being so sick that she expected to die. And it is 
remarkable that most of her visions were immediately pre- 
ceded by one of these fainting death spells. This shows 
plainly that they are the result of nervous weakness. She 
says: "My feelings were unusually sensitive." Testi- 
monies Vol. I, page 12. Now read this: "Women * * * 
whose nervous system is extremely sensitive, are the most 


subject to hysterical affections," Encyclopedia Americana, 
article, Hysteria. An exact fit. 


When nine years old a girl hit her on the nose with a 
stone, broke her nose, and nearly killed her. Page 9. "I 
lay in a stupor for three weeks." Page 10. ''I was re- 
duced almost to a skeleton." Page 11. '*My health seemed 
to be hopelessly impaired." Page 12. "My nervous system 
was prostrated." Page 13. Here was the origin of her 
hysteria of after years. In this condition she ' ' listened to 
the startling announcement that Christ was coming in 1843." 
Page 14. * 'These words kept ringing in my ears; 'the 
great day of the Lord is at hand.'" Page 15. ''I fre- 
quently attended the meetings and believed that Jesus was 
soon to come." Page 22. Of her impression of hell she 
says: ''My imagination would be so wrought upon that the 
perspiration would start." Page 24. "I feared that I 
would lose my reason." Page 25. At one time she did 
become insane for two weeks as she writes herself. Spirit- 
5'al Gifts, Vol. II, page 51. She continues: "My health 
w^s very poor." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 55. It was 
thought that she could live but a few days. Then it was she 
had her first vision, really a fit. Page 58. "I was but seven- 
teen years of age, small and fraiL" Page 62. "My strength 
wus taken away," and angels talk with her. Page 64. "My 
friends thought I could not live. * * * Immediately 
taken off in vision." Page 67. Notice that her visions 
happen when she is very sick ! This tells the story ; they 
are the result of her physical weakness. If it was the power 
of the Holy Ghost, why didn't God send it when she was 
well? Why not? 

"I often fainted like one dead." The next day she was 


well and '*rode thirty-eight miles." Page 80. This is 
characteristic of hysterical females, as all know who have 
seen them. They are just dying one hour and all well the 
next. Mrs. White has gone through that a thousand times. 
She is just dying, is prayed for, is healed by God, and all 
well in a few minutes. In a few da3's she goes right over 
it again. But if God heals her, why don't she stay healed ? 
This used to bother me. When Jesus healed a man, did he 
have to go back and be healed over again every few days ? 
She goes on: "I fainted under the burden. Some feared I 
was dying. * * * I was soon lost to earthly things" — 
had a vision. Page 86. Again: "I fainted. Prayer was 
oflfered for me and I was blessed and taken off in vision." 
Page 88. There you have it, the same old story. It is 
simply her hysterical imagination, nothing more. Next 
page. "I fainted * * * taken off in vision." So she 
goes on all through her book. Says the Encyclopedia Ameri- 
cana, article. Hysteria: * 'Fainting fits, palpitation of the 
heart appear very frequently and are sometimes so severe 
that persons afflicted with them seem to be dying." MikS. 
White exactly. 

On page after page the same story is repeated by herself. 
In the account of her last vision, Jau; 3, 1875, she was very 
sick till it ended in a vision. Testimonies, Vol. Ill, page 570. 
Dreadful sick, almost dead, then a vision — this is the story, 
times without number, from her own pen. That tells the 
story. The vision is the result of her physical weakness. 

5. Visions in public. ''As a rule a fit of hysteria occurs 
when other persons are present, and never comes on during 
sleep. " Theory and Practice of Medicine, by Roberts, page 
401. Most of her visions occur in public, and generally 
while she is very sick, or when praying or speaking 
earnestly. This was the case with her first vision. Spiritual 
Gifts, Vol. I, page 30. So, again, on pages 37, 48, 51, 62, 


83, and many more, she has her visions in the presence of 
many. I do not know that she ever hud a vision while 


6. All medical books state that hysterical persons are 
given to exaggeration and deception. The inclination is 
irresistible. Nothing can break them of it. Gurnsey's 
Obstetrics, article Hysteria, says: "Such persons entertain 
their hearers with marvelous tales of the greatness and 
exploits of their past lives, -x- * ^ These " accounts are 
uttered with an air of sincerity well calculated to deceive 
the honest listener, and such unbridled license of the imagin- 
ation and total obliviousness in regard to the truth, which 
are vulgarly attributed to an entire want of principle and 
the most inordinate vanity, are in reality due to that morbid 
condition of the female organism which is designated by the 
comprehensive term hysteria." 

Mrs. White is always telling what great things she has done. 
The deception which she so often practices, and which I have 
witnessed in her myself, is here accounted for on principles 
which do not impeach the moral character, and I am glad to 
accept the explanation. 

7. Does not breathe. * 'Stoppage of respiration usually 
complete." "Generally appears to hold his breath." Rob- 
erts' Theory and Practice of Medicine, page 393-394. Elder 
White, describing her condition in vision, says: "She does 
not breathe." Life Incidents, page 272. They always refer 
to this fact with great confidence as proof of the supernatural 
in her visions; but it will be seen that it is common in these 

8. Importance of self. ' 'There is a prevailing belief in 
the importance of self, and the patient thinks that she differs 
from every other human being." Raynold's System of 


Medicine, article Hysteria. Mrs. White to a hair. Hear 
her laud herself: "It is God, and not an erring mortal, who 
has spoken." *'God has laid upon my husband and m3^self 
a special work." "God has appointed us to a more trying 
work than he has others." Testimonies, Vol. HI, pages 257, 
258, 260. I have known her nearly thirty years, and I never 
knew her to make confession of a single sin or evil in all that 
time, not she. Seventh-Day Adventists ridicule the Pope's 
claim to infallibility but they themselves are bowing to the 
authority of a woman who makes higher claims to infalli- 
bility than ever pope or prophet did. Space will not 
allow me to fill out every particular of her experience 
by quotations from medical works compared with her own 
statements; but even these given above are sufficient to 
show the nature and philosophy of her attacks. They are 
the result of nervous disease, precisely the same as has 
been often seen in the case of thousands of other sickly 


9. Dr. Fairfield was brought up a Seventh-Day Ad- 
ventist; was for years a physician in their Sanitarium 
at Battle Creek. He has had the best opportunity to observe 
Mrs. White. He writes: "Battle Creek, Mich., Dec. 28, 
1887. Dear Sir: — You are undoubtedly right in ascribing 
Mrs. E. G. White's so-called visions to disease. It has been 
my opportunity to observe her case a good deal, covering 
quite a period of years, which, with a full knowledge of her 
history from the beginning, gave me no chance to doubt her 
("divine") attacks to be simply hysterical trances. Age itself 
has almost cured her. 

W. J. Fairfield, M. D." 

Dr. Wm. Russell, long a Seventh-Day Adventist, and a 
chief physician in the Sanitarium, WTote July 12th, 1869, 
that he had made up his mind some time in the past, "that 


Mrs. White's visions were the result of a diseased organiza- 
tion or condition of the brain or nervous system." "When 
giving to a conference at Pilot Grove, Iowa, 1865, an 
account of her visit at Dr. Jackson's health institute, she 
stated that the doctor, upon a medical examination, pro- 
nounced her a subject of hysteria." Mrs. White's Claims 
Examined, page 76. 

Here is the testimony of three physicians, who have per- 
sonally examined Mrs. White. She joined the Millerites in 
their great excitement of 1843-44. In their meetings she 
often fainted from excitement. In the enthusiasm and 
fanaticism of the time many had various "gifts," visions, 
trances, etc. She drank deeply of their spirit. The grief 
and disappointment of the passing of the set time were too 
much for her feeble condition. Says Dr. Eobcrts: "The 
exciting cause of the first hysterical fit is generally some 
powerful and sudden emotional disturbance. " "Sometimes 
the attack is preceded by disappointment, fear, violent, ex- 
citing, or even religious emotions." Library of Universal 
Knowledge, article Catalepsy. Just her case in 18 i4, in the 
great excitement and disappointment she then met. 


Dr. George B. Wood's "Practice of Medicine," page 721 
of Vol. II, in treating of mental disorders, and explaining the 
cause and phenomena of trances, says: 

"Ecstacy is an affection in which, with a loss of conscious- 
ness of existing circumstances, and insensibility to impres- 
sion from without, there is an apparent exaltation of the 
intellectual or emotional functions, as if the individual were 
raised into a different nature, or different sphere of exist- 
ence. The patient appears wrapped up in some engrossing 
thought or feeling, with an expression upon his countenance 
as of lofty contemplations or ineffable delight- * * * 


Upon recovering from the spell, the patient generally 
remembers his thoughts and feelings more or less accurately, 
and sometimes tells of wonderful visions that he has seen, 
of visits to the regions of the blessed, of ravishing harmony 
and splendor, of inexpressible enjoyment of the senses or 

A person perfectly familiar with Mrs. White could not 
have described her visions more accurately. Another high 
medical authority, in describing ecstacy and catalepsy, says: 
"It often happens that the two diseases alternate or co-exist. 
In ecstacy the limbs are motionless, but not rigid. The eyes 
are open, the pupils fixed, the livid lips parted in smiles, and 
the arms extended to embrace the beloved vision. The 
body is erect and raised to its utmost height, or else is ex- 
tended at full length in recumbent posture. A peculiar 
radiant smile illuminates the countenance, and the whole as- 
pect and attitude is that of intense mental exaltation. Some- 
times the patient is silent, the mind being apparently ab- 
sorbed in meditation, or in the contemplation of some beati- 
fic vision. Sometimes there is mystical speaking or pro- 
phesying, or singing, or the lips may be moved without any 
sound escaping. * * * LTsually there is complete insen- 
sibility to external impressions. Ecstacy is often associated 
with religious monomania. It was formerly quite common 
among the Inmates of convents, and is now not unfrequently 
met with at camp-meetings and other gatherings of a similar 
nature. Many truly devout people are extatics." G. 
Durant, M. D. , Ph. D. , member of the American Medical 
Association, Fellow of the New York Academy of Medicine, 
etc. , etc. , recipient of several medals, etc. 

This is Mrs. White's case very clearly. Hundreds of 
similar ones have occurred in every age and are constantly 
occurring now. The sad part of it is that so many honest 
souls are deluded into receiving all this as a divine revelation. 


Much in many ways : 

1. It is an error and a deception. 

2. She deceives herself and others. 

3. She teaches false doctrines. 

4. She has a harsh, uncharitable spirit, and begets this in 
all her followers. 

6. She builds up an isolated sect, and thus destroys all 
their influence for good. 

6. Her teachings make her people narrow, bigoted, and 
gloomy. Thus she blasts the peace of thousands of souls. 

7. It leads her advocates to deceive. Being afraid that 
it will hurt them in new places, if it is known in what light 
they really hold her visions, they keep them back as long as 
they can and then they deny that it is a matter of import- 
ance with them. This is false and deceptive, for they hold 
faith in her visions to be as important as keeping the Sab- 
bath, and they hold her visions to be as sacred as the 

8. To defend her mistakes and errors, both she and her 
apologists have to deny the plainest facts and resort to argu- 
ments very questionable. 

9. To defend her errors, they compare them to supposed 
errors in the Bible, and thus destroy faith in that book. 

10. She rules her whole people with a rod of iron, and 
dictates to them in everything, even the smallest and most 
private affairs of family life. She boasts that her work ''is 
to come down to the minutiae of life." Testimonies, Vol. 
II, page 608. With this idea she meddles with everything 
public and private, and all the affairs of families, till it be- 
comes, to a man of spirit, an intolerable bore. She meddles 
between husband and wife, parents and children, breaks up 
marriage engagements which do not suit her, dictates to aL^ 
her followers what they shall eat, how, and when; the cut 


and color of their dress; their business, the disposition of 
their means, etc., etc. In proof of this let a person read 
any of her "Testimonies," for they are all full of it. 

11. Her severity and harshness have driven many to de- 
spair, others to back-slide, and others out of the church. I 
can name many individuals and families whose happiness 
she has blasted. She broke the heart and darkened the life 
of my first wife by her cruel words to her. Any one who 
dares to get in her way must either succumb, be crushed, or 
driven out. The effort to bind her visions as inspired upon 
the faith and consciences of the whole denomination has pro- 
duced continual wrangling, division, and much bitter feeling, 
right among themselves for the last sixty years. Families, 
churches and conferences have been divided over them, while 
hundreds, yes, thousands, have been driven from them because 
they would not accept Mrs. White's visions as inspired. 

12. They produce doubts and infidelity. "WTien those who 
have been led to firmly believe them finally come to see 
that they have been deceived, then they are in danger of 
losing faith in everything and so becoming out and out in- 
fidels, or at least skeptical. Large numbers have gone to 
ruin that w^ay whom I have personally known. Some have 
gone to the Spiritualists, some to the Free Thinkers, some 
to the Shakers, some to the Mormons, and some to the 
world. They have nearly driven Mrs. White herself into 

Jnfidelity. Here are her own words: "In the night I have 
awakened my husband, saying, 'I am afraid that I shall be- 
come an infidel.' " Testimonies, Vol. I, page 597. How un- 
like the apostles that sounds. 


There is no example in the Bible where a prophet took ad- 
vantage of his inspiration to enrich himself. They generally 
worked hard, had little, and died poor. But Mrs. White 


began poverty poor. She says : " We entered upon our 
work penniless." Testimonies, Yol. I, page Y5. But as 
soon as they became leaders, they managed to supply them- 
selves well. Since I knew them, thirty years ago, they have 
had an abundance, and have used means for themselves 
lavishly. They would always have the best and plenty of 
it. Everywhere they went they required to be waited upon 
in the most slavish manner. Mrs. White dresses very 
richly, often is furnished women to wait on her, and all 
their time and expenses are paid by the conference. 

When Elder White died he left a large fortune. He was 
a sharp business man, and took advantage of his position 
to benefit himself and family, and she aided him in it by 
her revelations. How different from Mr. Moody ! Mrs. 
White is eighty years old, is worth thousands, has a large 
income, has not a single soul dependent upon her, says that 
time is about to end, urges all to cut down their possessions, 
yet takes large royalty on all her numerous books and 
seems as eager for money as others. How is this ? 

The last year I was with them she received $18 per week, 
was furnished two women to wait on her and all traveling 
expenses paid. The same year they sold 20,000 copies of 
Great Controversy on which she received a royalty of 
$2,500 besides an income from all her other works. Her 
inspiration has paid her well financially. 

Take an example or two of how she used her revelations 
to make money : In 1868 Elder White had on hand several 
thousand dollars' worth of old books which were dead prop- 
erty, as they were not selling and were growing out of date. 
He hit on a plan to raise a " book fund ■ ' for the free distribu- 
tion of books and tracts. This fund he used to buy out his 
and her old books ! When the money did not come fast 
enough, she had a revelation about it thus : " Why do not 
our brethren send in their pledges on the book and tract 


fund more liberally ? And why do not our ministers take 
hold of this work in earnest? ^- * * \Ye shall not hold 
our peace upon this subject. Our people will come up to 
the work. The means will come. And we would say to 
those who are poor and want books, send in your orders. 

•5f * * -yYe ^[[i send you a package of books contain- 
ing four volumes of Spiritual Gifts, How to Live, Appeal to 
Youth, Appeal to Mothers, Sabbath Headings and the two 
large charts, with key of explanation, * * * and charge 
the fund four dollars." Testimonies, Vol. I, page 689. 
Every one of these books was their own. The money came 
and they pocketed it all. I was there and know. 

Mrs. White now has forty inspired books. To sell 
these, every possible effort is made through every channel. 
She is constantly urging it by all her inspired authority. 
Hear her: "The volumes of Spirit of Prophecy and also the 
Testimonies should be introduced into every Sabbath keep- 
ing family. ^ ^ ^ Let them bo worn out in being read 
by all the neighbors. ^ ^ ^ Prevail upon them to buy 
copies. * ^ ^'' Light so precious, coming from the throne 
of God, is hid under a bushel. God will make his people 
responsible for this neglect." Testimonies, Vol. IV, pages 
390, 391. So, of course, her books must be pushed and sold 
while she makes money. It pays to be inspired ! 


1 once accepted Mrs. White's claim to inspiration for the 
same reason that most of her followers do. I first accepted 
the Sabbath and then other points of the faith till I came to 
believe it all. 

2. Once among and of them I found all stating in strong 
terms that Mrs. White was inspired of God. I supposed 
they knew, and so took their word for it; and that is what 
aU the others do as they come in, deny it as they may. 


3. I soon found that her revelations were so connected 
with the whole history and belief of that church that I could 
not consistently separate them any more than a person could 
be a Mormon and not believe in Joseph Smith. I believed 
the other doctrines so firmly that 1 swallowed the visions 
with the rest, and that is what all do. 

4. When I began to have suspicions about the visions I 
found the pressure so strong that I feared to express them, 
or even to admit them to myself. All said such doubts 
were of the Devil and w^ould lead to a rejection of the truth 
and then to ruin. So I dared not entertain them nor investi- 
gate the matter; and this is the way it is with others. 

5. I 'saw that all who expressed any doubts about the 
visions were immediately branded as "rebels," as "in the 
dark," "led by Satan," "infidels," etc. 

6. Having no faith in any other doctrine or people, I did 
not know what to do nor where to go. So I tried to believe 
the visions and go along just as thousands of them do whep 
I'eally they are in doubt about them all the time. 

Her last Testimony just out reveals the fact that there is 
a w^ide-spread efibrt among her people to modify her high 
claims. She protests vehemently and warns them to keep 
their hands off. Sooner or later there must be a revolt 
against her high claims. 

The following from Chambers' Encyclopedia, Article South- 
cot t, is also applicable to Mrs. White and her followers: 
' ' The history of Joanna Southcott herself has not much in it 
that is marvelous; but the influence which she exercised ovei 
others may well maybe deemed so, and the infatuation of her 
followers is hard to be understood, particularly when it is 
considered that some of them were men of some intelligence 
and of cultivated mind. Probably the secret of her influence 
lay in the fact that the poor creature was in earnest about 
her own delusions. So few people in the world are realij 


SO that they are always liable to be enslaved by others 
who have convictions of any kind, however grotesque. 
On her death-bed Joanna said : ' If I ^ave been misled, it 
has been by some spirit, good or evil.' * * * Poor 
Joanna never suspected that the spirit which played such 
vagaries was her own." 

Just so of Mrs. White. It is marvelous that with all the 
proof of her failures intelligent men are still led by her. 
But the case of Joanna, of Ann Lee, and others, helps us 
to solve this one. All have earnestly believed in their 
own inspiration, and this alone has convinced others. 

The Adventists' Addition to the Bible 

" The Bible and the Bible Only, Eddy's Science and Health to tell 

as a Rule of Faith and Practice," is what it means. 

the Protestant watchword for which Seventh Day Adventists have the 

saints have fought and martyrs died. Bible and — and — something else — 

The Catholic church has the Bible Mrs. White's revelations to interpret 

and — and — something else — an infal- it. 

lible Pope to interpret if. Each of the above churches has 

The Swedenborg church has the done exactly the same thing, namely, 

Bible and — and — something else — has put right along with the good 

Swedenborg's revelation to interpret old Bible another interpreter to tell 

it. what that old Bible really means. 

The Shakers have the Bible and Whatever these new interpreters say 

— and — something else — Mother it means, all their members must ac- 

Ann Lee's revelation to interpret it. cept as true without further question. 

The Mormons have the Bible and Dare a Catholic dispute the Pope's 

— and — something else — Joe Smith's interpretation, or a Mormon dispute 

revelations to interpret it. Smith's, or an Adventist dispute Mrs. 

Christian Scientists have the Bible White's interpretation ? No, in- 

and — and — something else — Mrs. deed. 



That the Sabbath of the decalogue was partly moral and 
partly ceremonial, or positive, in its nature has been the 
doctrine of the church as taught by its best theologians in 
all ages. Take a few examples out of scores that could be 
given. Watson's Theological Institutes, the great Meth 
odist standard, says: *' But as the command is partly posi- 
tive and partly moral, it may have circumstances which are 
capable of being altered in perfect accordance with the moral 
principles on which it rests." Vol. II, page 511. So Scott's 
Commentary on Ex. 20: 8-10 says: ''The separation of a 
portion of our time to the immediate service of God is 
doubtless of moral obligation. * * * gy^ f]^Q exact 
proportion, as well as the particular day, may be considered 
as a positive institution." 

The moral basis of the Sabbath is readily manifest. That 
man should devote some part of his time to the special ser- 
vice and worship of God is reasonable, and we would natu- 
rally expect that the Lord would, in some way, designate 
such time, just as he did do in the Sabbath precept. 

Experience proves that man's physical nature requires a 
day of rest about as often as one in seven. Many experi- 
ments have been tried and careful observations made, all 
showing that both men and beasts will accomplish more work 
in a given time, do it in a better manner and preserve better 
health by resting every seventh day than they will by labor- 
ing continuously. This is the testimony of business men 



and of eminent physicians. Hence the Sabbath rest had its 
foundation in nature itself. The mind also requires a day 
of rest as regularly as the body. Constant thought and 
mental application is ruinous to the mind. This has been 
proved in the case of students, lawyers, business men, etc. 
Socially and religiously, the weekly rest day is of the ut- 
utmost importance to man's highest good. All other means 
combined can hardly equ^l the observance of the Lord's day 
for the purpose. 

Then as to the influence of the church and its power for 
good, its hold upon its own members and upon community, 
its opportunity to teach and preach the gospel, the regular 
weekly rest day is its strong hold as all well know. Hence, 
if ever a law of God had a moral basis, the Sabbath com- 
mandment has. * * * "The Sabbath was made for 
man" because he needed it physically, mentally, socially, 
morally and religiously. Mr. Gladstone says: "Sunday is 
a necessity for the retention of man's mind and of a man's 
frame in a condition to discharge his duties." 

All experience shows that a Sabbathless community is a 
godless, immoral, and, generally, a thriftless community. 
Hence he is an enemy of society and of religion who would 
break down the restraints of such a weekly rest in the com- 
munity. So we say that the Sabbath law rested upon a 
moral basis in providing a weekly Sabbath for the nation of 


But when we come to the definite day, which it shall be, na- 
ture does not indicate that. All the benefits above mentioned 
would be secured by keeping one day as well as another. 
There would not be a particle of difference whichever day 
was selected. Suppose that all the churches would change 
in one week and keep Saturday instead of Sunday, what 


practical difference would it make ? None at all. Physical 
rest, mental rest, social and religious privileges, a quiet day, 
— all that can be secured by one day can by another, so far 
as the day itself is concerned. But to secure the greatest 
good from the day, all should rest the same day. Where 
this is not done contusion and evil follows. Hence, the law 
provided that all must rest the same day. Ex. 20: 8-11. 

God has marked no difference in the nature of days in 
themselves. All nature goes right on just the same every 
day alike. We see nothing in one day of the week which 
differs from another, and there is no difference. No day is 
holy in and of itself and by its own nature. The learned 
Dr. Edwards says: ^*No identical period of duration is, in 
itself, intrinsically holy." Sabbath Manual, page 92. In 
every case God had to make the day holy by a special 
appointment. The same appointment of some other day 
would have made it just as holy. 

Nor does nature indicate clearly just the proportion of 
time to be used. Hence God's example of six days' work 
and the seventh of rest was doubtless given as a model for 
man to follow. To this the Lord pointed in giving the Sab- 
bath law. Ex. 20. And this divine model all Christians 
now follow in resting on the Lord's day after six days' work. 

Another fact which Sabbatarians overlook is that God's 
act of resting on the day did not confer any holiness upon 
it. Gen. 2:3, says: "God blessed the seventh day and sanc- 
tified it because that in it he had rested^ So Ex. 20: 11. 
He "rested the seventh day, wherefore the Lord blessed the 
Sabbath day and hallowed it." First,God rested on the day, 
but that did not make it holy. After that he blessed it but 
still it was not holy time. Third, he hallowed it, made it 
holy. So the day was not holy in itself nor did God's rest- 
ing on it make it holy. 

The Lord has made other days holy, days on which he 


never rested. The day of atonement was as noly as the 
weekly Sabbath. Thus: "It shall be an holy convocation 
unto you. * * * And whatsoever soul it he that doeth 
any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy 
from among his people. Ye shall do no manner of work: 
*^ ^ * It shall be unto you a Sabbath of rest. " Lev. 23: 
27-32. So there were seven of these yearly holy days. 
Elder Smith, Adventist, says: "The word Sabhath means 
rest. That is the one sole idea it conveys, first, last, and all 
the way between, — cessation from labor, rest. Here were 
seven annual days on which there was to be an entire sus- 
pension of labor. Were these days Sabbaths, or were they 
not? If they were not, can any one tell us why they 
were not?" What Was Nailed to the Cross, page 11. 

So, then, according to the Bible and the arguments of 
the Adventists themselves, diiferent days may become holy 
Sabbath days without the Lord's resting on them or even 
blessing them, for he did neither to these days. Further, a 
day which was once a holy Sabbath day, so holy that it was 
death to work on it, as in the case of the day of atonement, 
Lev. 23: 27-32, may cease to be so and become a common 
working day. See Col. 2: 16. Even Adventists do not 
keep those old holy days. So, then, holiness can be put 
upon a day, taken from it, or changed to another day. It is 
not necessarily a permanent, unchangeable affair. Let 
Sabbatarians meditate here awhile. More still: A day 
once appointed, and made a holy Sabbath day by God 
himself, may cease to be such and become even hateful to 
God. Thus: Isa. 1: 13-14, "The new moons and Sab- 
baths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is 
iniquity, even the solemn meeting, Your new moons and 
your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble 
unto me; lam weary to bear tlieray All these holy days 
God himself had appointed, but see how he hates them now. 


Is it an}' proof, then, that a particular day is holy now be- 
■ cause it was once holy ? None whatever. 

Notice also how many other things were made holy by 
God's appointment. Under the law we read of "the holy 
temple," "the holy hill," "the holy ark," "the holy instru- 
ments," "the holy vessels," "the holy water," "the holy 
perfume," "the holy altar," "the holy veil," "the holy 
linen coat," "the holy ointment," "the holy nation,'*' 
"the holy Sabbath," etc. Those pertained to the worship 
and service of God in his holy temple^ which was "only 
a shadow," "figure" or "type of the true temple" — the 
"spiritual house" of Christ, "his body, the church." 
While they stood as types they were "holy," and no 
longer. They had no inherent holiness, but were made holy 
by the command of God. Law and Gospel, page 43, by S. 
C. Adams. 

Like all the above holy things, the seventh day had 
no holiness in itself. It had to be "made" so. Mark 2: 
27. But moral duties are not made. They exist 
in the very nature of things. For instance, it is morally 
wrong to murder. It would have been wrong even if God 
had given no command against it. But it never would have 
been wrong to work on the seventh day unless God had 
given a commandment to keep it. So, then, the sanctity of 
the day does not rest upon the nature of the day itself, but, 
like a hundred other hallowed things, simply upon God's 
appointment, which may be altered any time at his will. 

All must admit that this commandment does difler from 
those which are admitted to be wholly moral. No one could 
* all his lifetime live in open violation of the commandments 
against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, adultery, stealing, etc., 
and yet have the least hope of heaven. Yet the most zealous 
Sabbatarian will admit that millions of devout Christians 
have lived holy lives who never kept the seventh day, but 


rested on Sunday instead. And Sunday-keepers will admit 
that those who keep Saturday instead of Sunday are Chris- 
tian people. Now, certainly, one or the other of these 
classes does not keep the Sabbath commandment, if the 
essential thing is to keep the particular day. Would any 
seventh-day man recognize as a Christian any person who 
would every week violate the letter of any other command- 
ment ? No, nor would he excuse him on any plea of ignor- 
ance either. Yet they will freely admit that thousands right 
around them who do not keep the Sabbath commandment as 
they read it, are yet good people and Christians. So, they 
themselves being judges, this commandment does differ from 
the others in some way. 


Adventists claim that there was nothing ceremonial in the 
decalogue or about the Sabbath. Bui let us consider what 
a ceremony is. Webster says: '^Ceremony. Outward rite; 
external form in religion." That is exactly what the obser- 
vance of the Sabbath was in Jewish worship. Do not Ad- 
ventists class the keeping of all the other holy days as 
ceremonial? Yes; but they were all "holy convocations," 
Lev. 23: 2, like the seventh day. Kead Elder Smith's own 
arguments on this point. He says: "Were these other 
days which were exactly like that, — days of rest and con- 
vocation, — were these days also Sabbaths, or were they 
not?" What Was Nailed to the Cross, page 11. Then he 
argues that they were all Sabbaths like the seventh day. 
Well, then if the keeping of these was a ceremony, and a 
part of the "ceremonial" law, then the same is true of the 
seventh day. 

The olxscrvance of the Sabbath on a particular day was a 
ceremonial service, the very first and chief of all their "out- 
ward rites and externaHorms." Thus, Smith's Dictionary 


of the Bible, article, Law of Moses, under the term "Cere* 
monial Law," says: "(3). Holiness of Times, (a) Th(? 
Sabbath. Ex. 20: 8-11. (h) The Sabbatical Year, (c) 
Year of Jubilee, (d) The Passover, {e) The Feast of 
Weeks. (/") Feast of Tabernacles, {g) Feast of Trumpets. 
(A) Day of Atonement." Thus the Sabbath stands at the 
head of all the ceremonial seasons. God himself so places 
it. Lev. 23: 1-4:4. "These are my feasts: Six days shall 
work be done, but the seventh day is the Sabbath." Then 
follow in order all the holy days of the year, the Sabbath 
standing first. It is arranged that way time and again, 
showing it is so designed. Again, Dr. Smith says: "The 
Sabbath was the keynote to a scale of Sabbatical observance 
consisting of itself, the seventh month, the seventh year, 
and the year of Jubilee." 

Adventists argue that the decalogue covers all sins. The 
greater embraces the lesser, they say. The sixth command 
prohibits murder, the highest crime of the kind, and that 
embraces and so foibids all lesser sins of the kind, as anger, 
quarreling, malice, hatred, etc. Well, now, let them try 
that on the fourth command and they will hit a truth 
which ought to open their eyes, viz. : the weekly Sabbath, 
as chief and head of all holy seasons and ceremonials, was 
placed there to represent all that class in the Jewish law. 
Rev. Dr. Potts, Methodist, says: "The law under the 
Mosaic dispensation was formulated into nine moral pre- 
cepts, with a Sabbath commandment added." The Lord's 
Day our Sabbath, page 10, 


In their very nature all purely moral laws are universal 
and eternal in their application, are binding in heaven, in 
Eden, on Jews or Gentiles, saints or sinners, now or here- 
after. Test the particular seventh day, Saturday^ by that 


rule, and it fails everywhere. Go to Venus, where the days 
are about twenty -three hours long; to Jupiter, where they 
are only about ten hours long; to Saturn, where they are 
about twelve hours long, or to some of the larger planets, 
where their days are much longer than ours. How could 
the inhabitants of those worlds keep our seventh day ? 
They could keep a seventh day, their own, but that would 
not be of the same length of ours, nor come at the same 
time of ours. Their seventh day would not be our Satur- 
day, nor would the seventh day of any two planets be alike, 
nor come at the same time. All the universe can keep a 
seventh part of time, but not the same seventh part. Not 
knowmg this, see what a blunder Mrs. White made. She 
says: "I saw that the Sabbath would never be done away, 
but the redeemed saints, and all the angelic host^ will 
observe it in honor of the great Creator to all eternity." 
Spiritual Gifts, Vol. I, page 113. Elder U. Smith, Biblical 
Institute, page 145, says: "We infer that the higher orders 
of his intelligences keep the Sabbath also. ^ * * The 
Sabbath of each of his creatures will be the Sabbath of all 
the rest, so that all will observe the same jperiod together for 
the same purpose." 

Here you have your definite seventh-day theory with a 
vengeance. Look at the utter absurdity and impossibility 
of the theory. All intelligent beings in heaven and earth 
and on all the planets, keep "the same period together." So 
the Sabbath day on this little planet of ours regulates the 
Sabbath days of all the planets in the universe ! I wonder 
how they manage it in Jupiter, where their days are only 
ten hours long, or in Venus, where they are twenty -three 
hours long, or in some of the planets where they are as long 
as several of our days ? As the Sabbath must be kept from 
sunset to sunset (Lev. 23: 32), I wonder how they find out, 
on all those planets, just when it is sunset down here ! 


The stubborn facts nearer home show that God's children 
do not, and cannot, all "observe the same period together." 
Everybody knows that it is Saturday in India some twelve 
l^ours sooner than it is here, and that it is Saturday here 
twelve hours after it has ceased to be Saturday there. In 
Australia the day begins eighteen hours sooner than it does 
in California. So the Seventh-Day brethren in California 
are working nearly the whole time that their brethren in 
Australia are keeping Sabbath! Come even nearer home 
than that. The sun sets about three hours later in Califor- 
nia than it does in Maine. So when the Seventh day Ad- 
ventists in Maine begin to keep the Sabbath at sunset Friday 
evening, their own brethren in California, where the sun is 
yet three hours high, will still be at work for three hours! 
So, very few of them on this earth, * 'observe the same 
period together." While some of them are keeping Sabbath 
on one part of the earth, others of them are at work on 
another part of the earth. How much less, then, do all the 
heavenly hosts keep the same period with men on earth. 

Now, if, as Mrs. White and Bro. Smith say, the angels keep 
our Sabbath, the question is, with which party do they keep it? 
With those in Australia, or those in America ? If the angels 
keep the Sabbath at the same time the Sabbatarians keep it 
in Australia, then the Sabbatarians in America are working 
while the angels keep Sabbath, and so, of course, the angels 
work while those here rest. So we see how absolutely false 
and absurd is the theory that all can keep the Sabbath at the 
same time. 

I have to confess that for many years I was so stupid as 
to suppose that the Lord himself kept the Sabbath at the 
same time I did here. I supposed that when the sun set 
Friday evening and I began keeping the Sabbath, the Lord 
and the angels began keeping it too. But now I see how 
utterly impossible that is; for if the Lord keeps the Sabbath 


at the same time I do here, then he does not keep it with the 
brethren on the other side of the globe, because they begin 
the Sabbath at least twelve hours earlier than we do here. 
In fact, it takes just forty-eight hours, or the time of two 
whole days, from the time any one day begins in the ex- 
treme east till it ends at the furthest place in the west. Will 
the reader stop and think carefully, sharply, on this point, 
for it is an important one ? It takes twenty-four hours for 
ih^ first end of a day to go clear around the earth. Then, 
as the last end of the da}^ is twenty-four hours behind the 
first end^ it must also have twenty-four hours more to go 
clear around the earth, and that makes forty-eight hours in 
all that each day is on the earth somewhere. 

I am quite certain that the average Sabbatarian feels when 
L e keeps the seventh day that he is now keeping holy time 
with the Lord himself, and with the angels, and with all his 
brethren. I used to feel that way I know, and the above 
quotations from Mrs. White and Elder Smith show plainly 
that even they think so, too. But it will be seen that this 
cannot be so unless the Lord keeps the time of two whole 
days each week. And in that case, those on this side of the 
earth would be working while the Lord was keeping the 
Sabbath with those on the other side of the earth. Then 
those on the opposite of the earth would be working while 
the Lord kept Sabbath with those on this side. And so none 
of them would keep the Sabbath with the Lord after all ! 
In fact, taking it all around the earth, there is not a single 
hour in the whole week, when there is not some Sabbatarian 
at work on some part of the earth ! 

But, further, does the Lord keep our seventh day with us, 
or does he keep the seventh day with the people on 
other planets ? Our days and wrecks are not at all in harmony 
with theirs, nor can one of them be like another. Now, if 
the Lord rests only on our Saturday, then he could not rest 


on the seventh day of Venus or Mars or Jupiter, etc., as the 
seventh day of each planet differs in length and comes at a 
different time, from that of our earth or any other planet. 
How, then, could God rest on all these days? If he did he must 
keep Sabbath all the time, and then nobody, angels or men, 
could keep the Sabbath with the Lord if they worked at all! 
What, then, becomes of Mrs. White's statement that '*all 
the angelic hosts" keep our Sabbath ? or Elder Smith's hy- 
pothesis that all the universe "will observe the same period 
together?" Both are utterly absurd. The same definite 
seventh day cannot be kept by all the universe; even on this 
earth alone it cannot be kept by all at the same time; but all 
can keep a seventh part of the time. This principle upon 
which the fourth commandment was based, may be of uni- 
versal application in earth and in heaven, in time or eternity. 
But just which day that shall be, is a matter of minor conse< 
quence to be determined by the circumstances in the case, 
which may and must differ at different times and different 
places. To the Jewish people it certainly was the seventh 
day, or Saturday, and no other day would have met the 
commandment. All the rigorous limitations and exactions 
of the Sabbath day, as under the Jewish law, could be car- 
ried out by a small people in a limited territory where the 
church bore rule. A particular day, the seventh, Deut. 5: 
12-13; definite hours, sunset to sunset. Lev. 23: 32; no 
fires in all their houses, Ex. 35: 3; stoning to death for 
picking up a stick. Num. 15: 32-36 — this was the Jewish 
law. But we are not Jews nor under the Jewish law. 
Under the new dispensation of the gospel, other circum- 
stances have arisen plainly and grandly marking another 
day as the all important day in Christian memory — the 
resurrection day. When the gospel was to go to all nations, 
to all climates, and around the earth, the Christian rest daji 
was necessarily and wisely left upon a far different basis. 


If a man's salvation depends upon keeping the same day 
to a minute that God kept at creation, then it is infinitely 
important that we know exactly to a rod where his day 
began so as to begin ours there too. But the Lord has not 
said a word about it nor given the least clue as to where to 
begin the day. JN^or do Sabbatarians know anything about 
it, but have to guess at the whole thing. The day is 
now generally reckoned to begin at a certain line 180 de- 
grees west from Greenwich, England. It runs north and 
south through the Pacific Ocean about 4,000 miles west of 
America. I wrote Prof. E. S. Holden of Lick Observatory 
asking, '' 1. Have we the date when the day line was 
established there ? 2. Who did it, and why ? 3. When ? 
4. Has it been reckoned from other places than Greenwich ?" 
He answered: "1. There was no one date. 2. No ona 
.For convenience. 3. During the last hundred years. 4. 
Yes. Canary Islands, Tenerefie, Ferro, Paris, Berlin, Jeru- 
salem, Washington, etc." So we see: 1. It is only 
within the last hundred years that the day line has been 
fixed where it now is. 2. This was done merely for con- 
venience, not because there was anything in nature requir- 
ing it. 3. At difierent times the day line has been counted 
from at least seven difierent places, from Jerusalem in the 
east to Washington in the west, about 8,000 miles difierence, 
or one-third the way around the earth. Hence, the begin- 
ning of the seventh day has varied that much at difierent 
dates. 4. In another century it may be changed again. 5. 
There is just as much authority for one place as the other, 
and no divine autnority for either, as it is all man's work 
and done at hap-hazard. 6. Hence, so far as duty to God 
is concerned, any nation, church or society is at liberty to 
begin the day wherever they please. One place will be just 
as apt to be in harmony with God's day line aa another. 


Sabbatarians in America can fix their day line in the 
Atlantic instead of in the Pacific and then our Sunday will 
be Saturday, and they will be all right and convert a nation 
in a day ! Could any one prove that this would not be in 
harmony with God's day line at creation ? Certainly not. 
It would be just as apt to be right as the present day line. 
Then why not do it ? Indeed, this is exactly parallel to what 
Seventh-Day Adventists have done within the past few years 
in the case of a whole colony in the Pacific Ocean. Pitcairn 
Island, in the Pacific, was settled one hundred years ago by 
persons who brought their reckoning eastward ft-om Asia. 
But it happens to be on the American side of the present 
day line ; hence their Sunday was our Saturday, and they all 
kept it one hundred years as Sunday. According to Advent- 
ists, this was an awful thing, for Sunday is the Pope's Sab- 
bath, the mark of the beast ! So, a few years ago, Advent- 
ists went there and converted them all to keeping Saturday. 
How ? They simply induced them to change their reckon- 
ing of the day line a few miles and lo ! their Sunday was 
Saturday ! Now they are all pious Sabbath-keepers while 
before they were all keeping Sunday, the mark of the beast ! 
And yet they are keeping exactly the same day they always 
kept ! If this is not hair-splitting, tell me what is. It illus- ^ 
trates the childishness of the whole Sabbatarian business./' 
Now let the Adventists just shift their day line a little further 
east to include America and they can keep our day with us. 

If the day began in the traditional place where Eden is 
said to have been located, then the day line would be away 
west of the present location some 7,000 miles, west even of 
Australia; and then the Seventh-Day people in Australia are 
not keeping the Sabbath at all. In that case the Sunday- 
keepers of New Zealand and Australia are now actually keep- 
ing the original seventh day, and Sabbatarians there are 
keeping the sixth day ! Do they know, and can they prove, 


fchat this is not so ? No; they simply have to take the reckon- 
ing just as it happened to be, right or wrong, without 
knowing which it is. And yet, at great expense, they have 
sent missionnries th(?re to convert the people over to keep 
another d;i} , when actually they do not know but what those 
people are really keeping the seventh day, and they them- 
selves arc wrong ! None, not even themselves, pretend to 
know where God began to reckon that day; yet they draw 
the line to a hair, and say that all will be damned who do 
not toe that line and count from that spot ! Does the salva- 
tion of a man's soul depend upon such mathematical niceties 
and such uncertainties as these ? If it does, we may well 
despair of heaven. 

The very fact that God has never revealed just where the 
true day line is, or where the seventh day began, shows that 
it is of no consequence for us to know. Alaska, the north- 
west point of America, was settled by Russians ages ago, 
before the present day line existed. Of course they brought 
their reckoning with them and hence their Sunday was on 
Saturday. In 1867 we bought Alaska and it became a part 
of the United States. The day we took possession our laws 
changed their Sunday to Saturday, all by human authority. 
Did that change the Edenic Sabbath for that people ? Again, 
in going around the earth one way we lose a day and going 
the other way we gain a day. Hence, in one case we must 
add a day and in the other drop a day. All have to do this 
to keep in harmony with the world. Adventists do this, 
but by what authority, and where ? The Bible says keep 
the seventh day and from sunset to sunset. Ex. 20: 8-11; 
Lev. 23: 32. Let two Adventists start from Chicago, one 
going east, the other w^est, around the earth. Each keeps 
carefully the seventh day as the sun sets. When they meet 
again at Chicago they will be two days apart ! One will be 
keeping Sunday and the other Friday. How do they man- 


age it ? Each gives up his seventh day and both take that of 
the world. So they only have a worldly day after all ! 

Look also at the difficulty in crossing this supposed day 
line in the Pacific Ocean. I have personally conversed with 
Sabbatarians who have crossed this line both ways, east and 
west. Going west, a day is added^ gohig east it is dropped, 
and this is done at noon of the day which finds them nearest 
the supposed line. On the vessel, a man going west sits 
down to dinner 11:50 ji. m. Friday. While he is eating the 
time is changed and he rises from dinner Saturday noon ! 
Then he has only six hours of Sabbath till sunset; or coming 
east, he sits down to dinner Saturday noon and rises from 
dinner Friday noon ! He has kept eighteen hours Sabbath; 
then it is gone in a second at high noon, and he has six hours 
to work till sunset. Now he must begin Sabbath once more 
and keep it over again — twenty-four hours I In one case ho 
only kept six hours Sabbath, and in the other case he kept 
forty-two hours ! 

These stubborn facts demonstrate the utter absurdity of 
the Sabbatarian view. They claim that these things do not 
bother them any; but I know that they do, and badly, too. 
They have ^vritten much on it, devised all sorts of diagrams, 
illustrations and arguments to meet the difficulty; but none 
are satisfactory, even to themselves. Hence new methods 
are constantly being devised to dodge the difficulty. The 
latest discovery is that adopted by the Seventh-Day Advent- 
ist ministers of the New Tork conference. It is that the earth 
is absolutely flat and stationary^ with sun, moon and stars 
much smaller than the earth and revolving around it ! "The 
sun, he do move," the old darkey said, and they say, Amen. 


Now test the definite Seventh-Day theory in the frozen 
regions of the north. The day must be kept from sunset to 


sunset. Lev. 23:32. But in the winter there are months 
when the sun is not seen there at all, so they have no sunset 
And again, in summer there are months when the sun is 
above the horizon all the time, when there is no sunset. 
Here the theory breaks clown entirely, and the day must be 
reckoned by artificial means. They can keep one-seventh of 
the time, and that is absolutely all that can be done. Seventh- 
Day Adventists have argued that there was no real difficulty 
here; it was all imaginary. They try to bluff it off with a 
laugh; but that does not answer the facts. I know that 
they themselves have got into serious trouble right here. So 
great was their difficulty, even in northern Sweden and Nor- 
way, that in 1886 it was seriously discussed as to whether 
they must not change and reckon the day not from sunset as 
now, but from p. m. Mrs. White and son were there and 
favored the change. I Avas on a committee of the General 
Conference to investigate the matter. We decided against 
the change and it was abandoned. What endless and need- 
less difficulties people get themselves into trying to keep a law 
which was only designed for the Jews in a limited locality. 
How contrary to the freedom and simplicity of the gospel ! 
In reply to all these facts, which cannot be denied, 
Seventh-Day people say: Is not the first da}^ of the week, 
or Sunday, just as definite a day as the seventh day, or Sat- 
urday ? Is it not just as difficult to keep Sunday all around 
the world as it is to keep Saturday ? Do 3'ou not claim that 
you should keep the first day in honor of the resurrection ? 
and will it do, then, to keep some other day ? The answer 
to these questions is not hard to give. The essential idea is 
that we should devote one day in seven to religious duties. 
To secure the highest good, all should unite in observing the 
same day. From the days of the apostles the Christian 
church has, with one consent, observed the day on which 
Jesus rose from the dead, the first dav of the week, or Sun- 


day. But it is not claimed that it is absolutely essential that 
exactly the same minutes and hours, or even the same 
definite day, must be kept anyway and under all circum- 
stances, whether or no. That would be legalism, and con- 
trary to the very nature and freedom of the gospel. Sup- 
pose the Jewish day on which Jesus arose was reckoned from 
sunset to sunset, as doubtless it was, must we also reckon it 
that way ? As it is found more convenient to reckon the 
day from midnight to midnight, and as all are united in 
doing so, it is for the best interests of religion to conform to 
this custom. If, in traveling around the world, men should 
mistake their longitude, as in case of Alaska and Pitcairn's 
Island, and call Saturday Sunday, it is not material. They 
had better all unite on that than to quarrel over it. 

If, in the long period of darkness at the north pole, men 
should lose the time, and then select some other period than 
that which exactly corresponds to our Sunday, hour for 
hour, the difierence would not be material. Or, if in locat- 
ing the day line from which to reckon the beginning of the 
day, that line had happened to be located 5,000 miles further 
east or 10,000 further west, it would not have made a par- 
ticle of difference. And as to whether we now begin the 
day just where God did in Eden or not, is a matter of no 
consequence. And whether our brethren in China rest at 
the same time we do or not, is of little account. And 
whether the Sabbath of Jupiter and Mars and Neptune, and 
of heaven itself, comes when ours does or not, is of little 
interest to us. It will be time enough to settle that matter 
when we go to live with them. So, while traveling around 
the earth, east or west, or crossing the day line, whether or 
not we are able to keep exactly the same time, or even exactly 
one-seventh part of time to a minute, is of little importance. 
We do the best we can under the circumstances, and con- 
foriaa to the time as reckoned by those where we go. To 


* 'strain at a gnat and swallow a camel," is not a good prac- 
tice in any cause. But with the strict Sabbatarian all this 
is entirely different A certain day, beginning at precisely 
such a line to a hair, and at such a minute to a second, is 
holy time. If you don't hit that exact time just right, you 
might as well keep no day at all ! That may do for Judaism, 
but it certainly is not according to the spirit and freedom of 
the gospel. 

I believe this is a fair statement of the position held by 
the great body of the intelligent observers of Sunday. It 
harmonizes exactly with the statement of our Savior, that 
^- the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sab- 
bath." Mark 2:27. Man and his highest good are first; 
the Sabbath is secondary and subservient to these. Practi- 
cally, the Sabbatarian exactly reverses this order. The Sab- 
bath is the all-important thing, a rigid, iron rule, unbending 
and inflexible. Man and his necessities and his good are of 
little or no account in comparison with the supremely great 
duty to keep the Sabbath. ' ' Man was made for the Sab- 
bath, and not the Sabbath for man," would much better 
express their idea of the relative importance of the two. It 
is well for the people and the world that such pharisaical 
ideas have found few advocates in the church of Christ. 


Then how do Sabbatarians know that our Saturday is the 
exact seventh day from creation down ? Saj' s Rev. J. H. 
Potts, D. D. , editor of the Michigan (Methodist) Christian 
Advocate: "That in selecting the Jewish Sabbath day, 
Moses selected the regular successive seventh day of human 
time from Adam down cannot be proved by any authority, 
human or divine." The Lord's Day our Sabbath, page 12. 
This is endorsed by Bishop Harris and several other eminent 
divines. So Rev. Geo. Elliott, in his ''Abiding Sabbath," 


says: '' There is no possible means of fixing the day of the 
original Sabbath." So say all unbiased writers. 

During the long period before the flood; during the patri- 
archal age when they had no records; during their slavery 
in Egypt when even traditional knowledge was largely lost; 
during the anarchy under the judges, and all down the ages 
since, are they sure that no mistake has been made, not even 
of one day ? Of course they are not. The only possible 
way they can tell is by human tradition. In answer to my 
inquiry upon the point, Rabbi Isaac M. Wise, Cincinnati, 
O., the most learned Jew of the land, wrote me: ^'The 
Jemsh Sabbath is, in point of the particular time, a matter 
of tradition." So after all, their Sabbath-keeping rests upon 
tradition of men, the very thing Adventists condemn. 

But it is said that if the day had been lost, God knew 
which it was and would have pointed it out at the giving of 
the manna. Or if it had been lost before Christ's time, he 
would have known it and would have corrected them. But 
this assumes the very thing to be proved, viz. : that God 
cares as much about special hours and minutes as they do. 
This they can not prove. Evidently from the slight im- 
portance which he attached to keeping the Jewish Sab- 
bath Jesus would have kept any day which he found 
observed by the nation. 



Almost universally Christians regard Sunday as a sacred 
day. Do they olSer for this any adequate reasons ? Yes, 
indeed, and those which have been satisfactory to all th« 
best and ablest Christians the church has ever had. After 
keeping the seventh day and extensively advocating it for 
over a quarter of a century, I became satisfied that it was an 
error, and that the blessing of God did not go with the keeph 
ing of it. Like thousands of others, when I embraced the 
Seventh-Day Sabbath I thought that the argument was all 
on one side, so plain that one hour's reading ought to settle 
it, so clear that no man could reject the Sabbath and be 
honest. The only marvel to me was that everybody did not 
see and embrace it. 

But after keeping it twenty-eight years; after having per- 
suaded more than a thousand others to keep it; after having 
read my Bible through, verse by verse, more than twenty 
times; after having scrutinized, to the very best of my ability, 
every text, line and word in the Bible having the remotest 
bearing upon the Sabbath question; after having looked up 
all these, both in the original and in many translations; after 
having searched in lexicons, concordances, commentaries 
and dictionaries; after having read armfuls of books on both 
sides of the question ; after having read every line in all the 
early church fathers upon this point; and having written 
several works in favor of the Seventh-Day, which were satis- 
factory to my brethren; after having debated the question 
for more than a dozen times; after seeing the fruits of keep- 



ing it, and weighing all the evidence in the fear of God^ 1 
am fully settled in my own mind and conscience that the 
evidence is against the keeping of the Seventh-Day. 

Those who observe Sunday say that they do it in honor of 
the resurrection of Christ upon that day, and that this prac- 
tice was derived from the apostles and has been continued in 
the church ever since. Let us see. "The Lord's Day" 
is a term now commonly applied to the first day of the 
week, in honor of the Lord's resurrection on that day. 
Thus: "We believe the Scriptures teach that the first 
day of the week is the Lord's day." Baptist Church 
Directory, page 171. Excepting a few Sabbatarians of 
late date, all Christendom, numbering four hundred and 
sixteen million people, of all sects and all nations, regard 
Sunday as a sacred day and agree in applying the term 
"Lord's Day" to Sunday. So every dictionary, lexicon 
and cyclopedia applies that term to the first day. Here is a 
grand, undeniable fact of to day. When did this stream 
begin? Let us trace it up to its head through all the 

18th century, A. D. 1760. Rev. A. H. Lewis, D. D., 
Seventh-Day Baptist, is the author of "Critical History of 
Sunday Legislation." From page 181 1 quote: " The pro- 
fanation of the Lord's Day is highly oflfensive to Almighty 
God." Laws of Massachusetts, A. D. 1760. 

17th century, A. D. 1676. The Laws of Charles H of 
England say: "For the better observation and keeping 
holy the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, be it enacted," 
etc. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 108. 

16th century, A. D. 1536. Going back over 300 
years ago to the reformers, we find all Christians calling 
Sunday the "Lord's Day." Calvin, voicing the universal 
sentiment of his time, says: "The ancients have, not with- 
out sufiBcient reason, substituted what we call the Lord's 


Day in the room of the Sabbath." Calvin's Institute, Book 
2, chapter VIII, section 34. Luther, Zwingle, Beza, Bucer, 
Cranmer, Tyndale, etc. , likewise speak of the Lord's Day as 
the first day of the week. Here is another great fact as to 
the Lord's Day. It was in existence and universally observed 
300 years ago. 

15th century, A. D. 1409. ''He that play eth at unlaw- 
ful games on Sundays * * * gliall be six days 
imprisoned." Statute of Henry IV of England. Critical 
History of Sunday Legislation, page 90. 

I4th century, A. D. 1359. "It is provided by sanctions 
of law and canon that all Lord's Days be venerably observed." 
Archbishop of Canterbury. Critical History of Sunday 
Legislation, page 82. 

13th century, A. D. 1281. " The obligation to observe 
the legal Sabbatlj according to the form of the Old Testa- 
ment is at an end * * ^ to which in the New Testa- 
ment hath succeeded the custom of spending the Lord's Day 
* * * in the worship of God. " Archbishop of Canter- 
bury. Critical History of Sunday Legislation, page 81. 

12th century, A. D. 1174. "We do ordain that these 
days following be exempt from labor: * * * All Sundays 
in the year," etc. Emperor of Constantinople. History of 
Sabbath and Sunday, page 191. 

11th century, A. D. 1025. " Sunday marketing we also 
strictly forbid." Laws of Denmark. Critical History of 
Sunday Legislation, page 77. 

10th centur}', A. D. 975. "Sunday is very solemnly to be 
reverenced." Saxon Laws. Critical History of Sunday 
Legislation, page 75. 

9th century, A. D. 813. "All Lord's Days shall be ob- 
served with all due veneration and all servile work shall be 
abstained from." Council of Mayence. 

8th century. In the year 747, an English council said: 


*'It is ordered that the Lord's Day be celebrated with due 
veneration, and wholly devoted to the worship of God/' 
Andrew's History of the Sabbath, page 377. 

7th century, A. D. 695. *'If a slave work on Sunday by 
iiis lord's command, let him be free." Saxon Laws. Critical 
History of Sunday Legislation, page 71. 

6th century, A. D. 578. "On the Lord's Day it is not per^^ 
mitted to yoke oxen or to perform any other work except 
for appointed reasons." Council of Auxerre. 

5th century. Passing back to about A. D. 450, we come to 
the history of the church written by Sozomen. In book 2, Chap- 
ter Vni, page 22, of Constantine, he says: "He honored the 
Lord's Day, because on it he arose from the dead." This 
shows what was meant by Lord's Day in those early times. 

Stepping back once more to about A. D. 400, we reach the 
great theologian of the early church, St. Augustine. He says: 
"The day now known as the Lord's Day, the eighth, namely, 
which is also the first day of the week." Letters of St. 
Augustine, letter 55, Chapter XHL He says the first day of 
the week was known as the Lord's Day in his times. 

4th century. In A. D. 386, the Emperors of Rome de- 
creed as follows: "On the day of the sun, properly called 
the Lord's Day, by our ancestors, let there be a cessation of 
lawsuits, business, and indictments." Critical History of 
Sunday Legislation, page 36. Even the civil law at that 
early date recognized Sunday as the Lord's Day. 

Going back again to the era of Constantine the Great, the 
first Christian Emperor, we reach Eusebius, the "Father of 
Church History," A. D. 324. He constantly and familiarly 
uses the term "Lord's Day" for the first day of the week. 
One passage: "They (the Jewish Christians) also observe 
the Sabbath, and other discipline of the Jews, just like them; 
but, on the other hand, they also celebrate the Lord's Days 
very much like us in commemoration of his resurrection.'* 


Eccl. Historj^, book 3, Chapter XXVII. Here Lord's Day 
is distinguished from the Jewish Sabbath, and is said to be 
kept on account of the resuiTection. 

This brings us to the era of the Early Christian Fathers. 
I quote them as translated in the "Ante-Nicene Christian 
Library. " 

A. D. 306. Peter, Bishop of Alexandria in Egypt: ''But 
the Lord's Day we celebrate as a day of joy, because on it, 
he rose again." Canon 15. 

3d century, A. D. 270. Anatolius, Bishop of Laodicea, in 
Asia Minor: "Our regard for the Lord's resurrection which 
took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to celebrate it." 
Chapter X. 

About A. D. 250. The Apostolical Constitution: "On 
the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's 
Day, meet more diligently . " Book 2, section 7. 

A. D. 250, Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage in Africa: "The 
eighth day, that is, the first day after the Sabbath and the 
Lord's Day." Epistle 58, section 4. 

A. D. 200. Tertullian in Africa: "We solemnize the 
day after Saturday in contradiction to those who call this 
day their Sabbath." Apology, Chapter XVI. "We how- 
ever, just as we have received, only on the day of the Lord's 
resurrection, ought to guard not only against kneeling, but 
every posture and office of solicitude, deferring even our 
business." On Prayer, Chapter XXIII. 

2nd century, A. D. 191. Clement of Alexandria, Egypt: 
"He, in fulfillment of the precept, according to the gospel, 
keeps the Lord's Day, when he abandons an evil disposition, 
and assumes that of the Gnostic, glorifying the Lord's 
resurrection in himself." Book 7, Chapter XII. 

A. D. 180. Bardesanes, Edessa, Asia: "On one day, 
the first of the week, we assemble ourselves together." 
Book of the Laws of Countries. 


A. D. 140. Justin Martyr: ''But Sunday is the day on 
w^hich we all hold our common assembly, because Jesus 
Christ, our Savior, on the same day rose from the dead. " 
Apology, Chapter LXVII. 

A. D. 120. Barnabas. "We keep the eighth day with 
joyfulness, the day also on which Jesus rose again from the 
dead." Chapter XVIl. 

A. D 96. St. John on Patmos: "I was in the spirit on 
the Lord's Day." Kev. 1: 10. 

A. D. 60. Luke, Asia Minor: "And upon the first day 
of the week, when the disciples came together to break 
bread, Paul preached unto them." Acts. 20: 7. 

Thus we have traced the Lord's Day or Sunday as a 
sacred day among Christians from our time back through all 
the centuries up to the New Testament itself. 

Who can fail to see that the "Lord's Day" and the "first 
day of the week" are spoken of in the same manner both 
by the apostles and down through all the fathers and reform- 
ers to our day ? To every unbiased mind the evidence must 
be conclusive that the Lord's Day of Rev. 1: 10, written A. 
D. 96, is the resurrection day the same as it is in every in- 
stance where it is used by all the Christian fathers immediately 
following John. Mark this fact: l^i not one single instance 
either in the Bible or in all history can a passage be found 
where the term the Lord's Day is applied to the seventh 
day, the Jewish Sdbhath. This fact should be, and is de- 
cisive as to the meaning in Rev. 1: 10. Even Sabbatarians 
themselves do not call the seventh day the Lord's Day, but 
always say "Sabbath day." 


Webster: "Sunday, the first day of the week; the Chris- 
tian Sabbath; the Lord's Day." 

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible: "Lord's Day. The 


first day of the week, or Sunday, of every age of the 

Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia: "Lord's Day, the oldest 
and best designation of the Christian Sabbath, first used by 
St. John." Rev. 1: 10. 

Buck's Theological Dictionary, article Sabbath. *'It (the 
first day of the week) is called the Lord's Day." Rev. 1: 10. 

Johnson's New Universal Cyclopedia: "Lord's Day, a 
name for the first day of the week, derived from Rev. 1: 10." 

The Greek words rendered "Lord's Day," [Rev. 1: 10,] 
are Kiiriake hemera. Kiiriake^ the adjective, is from the 
noun kurioits^ and is thus defined: 

'-''Kuriakos — Of, or pertaining to the Lord, i. e.^ the 
Messiah; the Lord's. 1 Cor. 11: 20; Rev. 1: 1^:'— Green- 
field. /- 

^''Kuriakos — Pertaining to the Lord, to the Lord JesuE 
Christ: e. g., Jcuriakos deipnon^ the Lord's supper. [1 Cor. 
il: 20;] ^^i^W^zl'^ A^m^r<3^, the Lord's Day [Rev. 1: 10."] — 

''^Kurihos — Of, belonging to, concerning a lora or master, 
especially belonging to the Lord (Christ); Ylqucq huriake 
hemera^ the Lord's Day." — Liddell <& Scott. 

* 'This is the usual name of Sunday with the subsequent 
Greek fathers." — Parkhurst. 

^''Kuriakos — Pertaining to the Lord Jesus Christ; the 
Lord [1 Cor. 11: 20; Rev. 1: \^:'\-BagsteT's Analytical 
Greek Lexicon. 

So we might go all through the lexicons, finding the same 
definitions in all. Not a single one refers this te;m to God 
the Father, but without an exception all refer it to the Lord 
Jesus. There must be some good reason for this universal 

So the commentators. ' 'The Lord's Day. The first da^ 
of the week." Dr. Clark on Rev. 1: 10. 


**0n the Lord's Day, which can be meant of no othel 
than the day on which the Lord Jesus arose from the dead, 
even the first day of the week." Scott on Rev. 1: 10. 

Dr. Barnes says: "This was a day particularly devoted 
to the Lord Jesus, for (a) that is the natural meaning of the 
word Lord as used in the New Testament; and (b) if the 
Jewish Sabbath was intended to be designated, the word 
Sabbath would have been used." 

Prof. Hacket, in his comments on Acts 1: 24, says: 
^^Kuriakos^ when taken absolutely in the New Testament, 
refers generally to Christ." 

"Lord's Day, namely, the first day of the week." — Bv/r- 
Jcetfs Notes on the N. T. 

"The Lord's Day, the Christian Sabbath, the first day of 
the week." — Eclectic Commenta/ry on Rev. 1: 10. 

"The Lord's Day. The first day of the week, commem- 
orating the Lord's resurrection." Family Bible with notes, 
on Rev. 1: 10. Go through the whole list of commeataries, 
and all say the same thing. Have they no ground for this \ 
Yes, good enough to be conclusive. 

1. In all the Bible, the seventh day is never once called 
the Lord's Day. 

2. "The Sabbath" was the term invariably used for the 
Jewish seventh day. John himself always used that term 
when speaking of the seventh day. See John 5: 9, 10, 16, 
18; 7: 22, 23; 9: 14, 16; 19: 31. Had he meant that day in 
Rev. 1: 10, he certainly would have said "Sabbath Day," 
not Lord's Day. 

3. The Greek word kuriaJcos^ is a new word originating 
in the New Testament and found onl)^ in one other place, 1 
Cor. 11: 20, "the Lord's supper." Beyond dispute it 
here applies to the Lord Jesus. "The adjective huriake 
was ^formed by the apostles themselves.' [Winer, N. T. 
Gram., page 226.] To the same eflfect testify Liddell and 


iSoott. Of the mode of dealing with words in their lexicon, 
they say. 'We have always sought to give the earliest 
authority for its use first. Then, if no change was intro- 
duced by later writers, we have left it with that early au- 
thority alone.' (Pref. page 20.) When we turn to the word 
kuriakosy they give as their first citation, and therefore, as 
its earliest authorit}^, the New Testament. The question 
now arises why form a new word to express a sacred institu- 
tion, if the institution itself be not new ? Winer says: 
'Entirely new words and phrases were constructed mainly 
by composition, and for the most part to meet some sensible 
want.' (Gram, page 25.) What couccivable seusiblo want 
respecting the Sabbath did the Old Testament leave unex- 
pressed ? Clearly the new want arose from a nev/ insLitution. 
This position receives additional strength from the fact that 
the only other New Testament use of kuriakos is found in 1 
Cor. 11: 20, designating 'the Lord's supper,' which is certainly 
a new institution." Peter Vogel in debate with Waggoner, 
page 110. This is a strong point and should be decisive. 
4. As the gospel was a new institution, it necessitated 
the use of new terms. So we have "Christians," Acts 11: 
26, as the new name for God's people; ''apostles," "evange- 
lists," and "deacons" as the officers of tne new church; 
"baptism" as the initiatory rite into the church, the "Lord's 
supper," 1 Cor. 11: 20, and the "Lord's Day," as institu- 
tions of that church. Rev. 1: 10. The new relations as 
originated by the gospel could not be expressed by the old 
terms of the law; hence new words and new terms had to be 
used. For 1,500 years "Sabbath" had been the established 
name of the weekly rest day of the law and was still used by 
all for the seventh day. Hence if Christians were to have 
a new weekly rest day commemorating gospel facts, they 
must find a new terna for it. Hence we have "Lord'» 



There is a good reason why in the gospel the "Lord's 
Day" is Christ's day. Officially and emphatically he is the 
one Lord in this dispensation. 

The term Lord apphes to Christ about four hundred and 
fifty times in the New Testament. Hence in the gospel all 
things are commonly spoken of as belonging to Jesus as, 
"the disciples of the Lord," etc. Acts 9: 1. Now read to- 
gether "The Lord's body," 1 Cor. 11: 29, "this cup of the 
Lord," "blood of the Lord," Verse 27, "Lord's death," 
Verse 26, "the Lord's table," 1 Cor. 10: 21. "The Lord's 
supper." 1 Cor. 11: 20, "the Lord's Day," Rev. 1: 10. Do 
not all refer to the same Lord ? Of course they do, and who 
can fail to admit it ? Under the official jurisdiction of 
Jesus the Lord, come of necessity all the institutions now 
obligatory. Hence Lord's Day is Christ's Day, and that is the 
way it is always used in the early fathers as we have seen. 

Objections answered: The seventh day is called the 
"Sabbath of the Lord," Ex. 20: 10; "my holy day," Isa. 
58: 13; and Jesus says he was "Lord of the Sabbath day," 
Mark 2: 28. Isn't that the Lord's Day ? No; for: 1. The 
word Sabbath is used in each of these three texts but is not 
in Rev. 1: 10. 2. All three texts were spoken before tho 
cross and under the law, but Rev. 1: 10, is under the gospel. 
3. The Jewish Sabbath was abolished at the cross, Col. 2: 
16; Rom. 11: 5; Gal. 4: 10, sixty years before John wrote on 
Patmos, hence that could not have been the Lord's day when 
John wrote. 5. The fact that the term "Lord's day" im- 
mediately after the time of John, whenever used by the 
early church, was always applied to Sunday, and never to 
the Sabbath, settles its meaning in Rev. 1: 10. 

But it is objected that John and all the other evangelists 
in the gospels call Sunday simply ' 'the first day of the 
week," instead of the Lord's day. Hence if John, in Rev» 


1: 10, had meant that day he would have said "first day of 
the week," as he did in the gospel. The answer is easy. 
Jesus predicted that he would be put to death and rise the 
third day. Each evangelist is careful to show that the pre- 
diction was fulfilled. Hence they were particular to give the 
names of those three days as they were called by the Jews; 
that is, ''preparation day," "Sabbath day," and ''first day of 
the week." This is a sufficient answer. Moreover, it is pro- 
bable that the resurrection day was not immediately called 
the Lord's day; but by the time John wrote the Revelation, 
A. D. 96, it had come to be the well known name for that 
day, as we have shown. 


Why do people keep any day ? Always because of 
what occurred on that day. Why were the Sabbath, the 
passover, and other days kept ? Because of what occurred 
on those days. Why do we observe the 4:th of July, 
Christmas, the days of our birth, marriage, etc ? It is im- 
portant, then, to inquire if anything occurred on Sunday to 
make it worthy of being observed by Christians. 

Of all things used to commemorate past events, a memor- 
ial day Is the best. A monument, a statute, a college, and 
the like are local and only seen by the few ; but a day comes 
to all and regularly. Hence with what enthusiasm every 
nation celebrates its memorial days, as our own 4th of 
July. So religion has consecrated memorial days, as the 
Sabbath, the Passover, Pentecost, and others of the Jewish 
age. And shall the grandest of all institutions, the gospel, 
have no memorial day ? If so it woukl be the one only ex- 
ception among all the religions of the world and a great loss 
to the church. If the material creation merited a memorial 
day, how much more the spiritual redemption of the race 'i 


But why theorize ? It is the grandest and best known 
fact in all the earth to-day that the Christian church has a 
memorial day, the day of the Lord's resurrection, the Lord's 
day. It is regularly observed in every nation under Heaven. 
We have already shown how this day has always from the 
very days of the apostles, been regarded as a memorial day. 
It only remains to inquire, if it was the one day best 
adapted to this purpose. Study the life of Jesus, scan every 
noted day in it, in the year, in the month, in the week, and 
it must be admitted by all that no other than the resurrection 
day could be thought of for a moment. Think over the 
days of the week. How meager are the events of any 
other day compared with those of the resurrection day. 
Monday what ? Tuesday ? Wednesday ? Thursday his 
betrayal; Friday his death; Saturday in the grave. Would 
we select any of these days as a memorial day for a rejoicing 
church ? Surely not. 

"On the Jewish Sabbath the Saviour lay under the powder 
of death. It was to his disciples a day of restlessness and 
gloom. The remembrance of that day would always be to 
them grievous. The thought of the agony, the cross, the 
bitter cry, the expiring groan, and the mournful sepulcher 
could only create a feeling of sorrow. Forevermore the 
Jewish Sabbath day was despoiled of its gladness to the 
Christian heart." The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 21. 

It was the resurrection day on which every thing turned. 
Jesus might have lived the pure life he did, might have 
wrought all the miracles he did, might have died on the cross 
as he did, might have been buried as he was, yet all this 
would not have saved a soul if he had not risen from the 
dead. "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are 
yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in 
Christ are perished." 1 Cor. 15: 17-18. The resurrection 
completed the work which made Jesus the Saviour of the 


world. Jesus himself when asked for the evidence of hi.« 
authority, pointed to his resurrection on the third day as th^ 
proof of it. John 2: 18-21; Matt. 12: 38-40; 16: 21. 
This test of his divinity was well known to all, for the 
Pharisees said to Pilate. "Sir, we remember that thut de- 
ceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will 
rise again." Matt. 27: 63. 

When Jesus died, the hope of his disciples was buried 
with him, Luke 24: 17, 21, and the holy women were heart- 
broken. But the wicked Jews rejoiced and Satan triumphed 
while the angels mourned. If ever the devil had hope it 
was while Jesus was dead during that Sabbath day. But as 
Sunday begins to dawn, a mighty angel like lightning de- 
scends, the earth quakes, the grave opens and Christ arises 
a conqueror over Death, Hell, and the Grave. Matt. 28: 1-4. 
Satan's last hope is gone; the wicked Jews are dismayed; the 
holy women are glad; the hope of the disciples is revived; 
angels rejoice; the salvation of a world is secured; the suf- 
ferings and humiliation of the Son of God are ended; and he 
walks forth the Almighty Saviour, the Lord of all. Never 
such a morning dawned on this lost world before. No won- 
der it became the memorial day of the church. It was im- 
possible to be otherwise. 

Paul says that Jesus was * 'declared to be the Son of God 
with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the 
resurrection from the dead," Rom. 1:4. It was this that 
proved his divinity. So that there will be a day of Judg- 
ment God "hath given assurance unto all men, in that he 
hath raised them from the dead." Acts 17: 31. 

1. On Sunday Jesus rose from the dead. Mark 16: 9. 

2. On this day he first appeared to his disciples. 

3. On this day he met them at difierent places and repeat- 
edly. Mark 16: 9-11; Matt. 28: 8-10; Luke 24: 34; Mark 
16: 12-13; John 20: 19-23. 


4. On this day Jesus blessed them, John 20: 19. 
6. On this day he imparted to them the gift of the Holy 
Ghost. John 20: 22. 

6. Here he first commissioned them to preach the gospel 
to all the world. John 20: 21; with Mark 16: 9-15. 

7. Here he gave his apostles authority to legislate for 
and guide his church. John 20: 23. 

8. Peter sa3's God *'hath begotten us again unto a lively 
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead." 1 
Pet. 1: 3. 

9. On this day Jesus ascended to his father, was seated 
at his right hand and made head over all. John 20: IT; 
Eph. 1: 20. 

10. On thai day many of the dead saints arose from the 
grave. Matt. 27: 52-53. 

11. Here this day became the day of joy and rejoicing to 
the disciples. "Then were the disciples glad when they saw 
the Lord." John 20: 20. "While they yet believed not 
for joy." Luke 24: 41. 

12. On that day the gospel of a risen Christ was first 
preached, saying: ''The Lord is risen indeed." Luke 
24: 34. 

13. On that Sunday Jesus himself set the example of 
preaching the gospel of his resurrection by explaining all the 
scriptures on that subject and by opening the minds of the 
disciples to understand it. 

"Then opened he their understanding, that they might un- 
derstand the Scriptures." Luke 24: 27, 45. 

14. Finally on this day the purchase of our redemption 
was completed. 

With all these thrilling events of gospel facts crowded 
into that one resurrection day, making it memorable above 
all days in the history of the world, how could it but become 
the great day in the memory of the church ? The facts of 


that one day became the theme of the church ever since. 
The great battle between the apostles and the unbelieving 
Jews was concerning the events of that day; did Jesus rise, 
or did he not ? The Jews ''gave large money" to disprove 
it, Matt. 28: 12, while the apostles built the church and 
staked their lives upon it. Thus in God's own providence, 
the Jewish Sabbath was thrown into the shade, while all the 
hopes and thoughts and arguments and songs of the new 
church were necessarily turned to another day, the resurrec- 
tion day. 

Memorable day, one that should stir the heart of every 
Christian and move sinners to repentance as indeed it has 
done every week from that day on. "The Lord's Day," 
how appropriate the title for that grand day on which our 
Lord triumphed over all and laid deep and secure the founda- 
tion of the Christian church. Most appropriately, then, has 
it become the one memorial day of the gospel, the day of 
gladness and rejoicing. Shall we, then, call it a pagan day ? 
the pope's day? the mark of the beast? a day hateful 
to God and an abomination to Christ? God forbid. It 
was said of Jesus, "What evil hath he done?" So we 
ask, "AYhat evil has the observance of the Lord's Day ever 
done?" What man, or church, or nation, has ever been made 
worse by it ? Nay, verily, this is not its character nor its 


I have become satisfied myself that the meeting of Christ 
with his disciples "after eight days," John 20: 26, was on 
Sunday. He had met with them the previous Sunday 
evening. Verse 19. Here "after eight days" he meets them 
again. Sabbatarians count up and satisfy themselves that 
this occurred on Monday or Tuesday. But compare this 
with the expression "after three days." The number of the 
day after his death on which Christ was to rise is given in 


three ways. 1. "In three days," Matt. 26: 61; 27: 40. 3. 
"The third day," Matt. 16: 21; 20: 19. 3, "After three 
days," Mark 8: 31. All these expressions mean the same. 
He died Friday and rose Sunday; hence Sunday was "three 
days," "the third day" and "after three days" in their com- 
mon way of speaking. In the same way, "In eight days," 
"on the eighth day" and "after eight days" would all be the 
same, that is the next Sunday, or eighth day. 

What strengthens this position is the well known fact that 
the term, "the eighth day," became a common term for the 
resurrection day among all the early Christian fathers. Thus 
Eld. Andrews, the seventh-day historian, writing of Diony- 
sius, A. D. ITO, says of Sunday, "Every vn-iter who pre- 
cedes Dionysius calls it first day of the week, ^eighth day,' 
or Sunday." Testimony of the Fathers, page 52. Thus 
Barnabas, A. D. 120 says: "We keep the eighth day with 
joyfulness, the day also, on which Jesus rose again from the 
dead. " Epistle of Barnabas, Chapter XV. Justin Martyr, 
A. D. 140 says: "The first day after the Sabbath, remain- 
ing the first of all the days, is called however, the eighth, ac- 
cording to the number of all the days of the cycle, and [yet] 
remains the first." Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLI. 
And Cyprian, A. D. 250, says 'Hhe eighth day, that is the 
first day after the Sabbath, and the Lord's day." Epistle 58, 
Section 4. Where did the early church get the idea that the 
eighth day was the Lord's day, if not from the apostles ? 
Evidently, then, the meeting in John 20: 26, was on Sun- 
day. The only visits of Jesus with his disciples which the 
Holy Spirit saw fit to date carefully are those occurring on 


That the day of Pentecost, Acts 2, fell on Sunday has 
been believed and maintained by Christians in all ages. 
1. The time of Pentecost was thus stated: " Ye shal' 


oount unto you from the morrow after the Sabbath from the 
day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering, seven 
Sabbaths shall be complete, even unto the morrow after the 
seventh Sabbath shall ye number fifty days." Lev. 23:15, 
16. The day after the seventh Sabbath would certainly be 
the first day of the week. 

2. The Karaite Jews held that Pentecost according to 
the law must always be on Sunday. 

3. Pentecost means Ji; ft ieth., the fiftieth day after the first 
Sabbath where they began to count, hence it must faU on 
the first day of the week. 

4. Dr. Scott's commentary says; *'As Jesus arose on 
the first day of the week, so the Holy Spirit descended on 
the same, seven weeks, or on the fiftieth day afterwards." 
On Acts 2:1. 

5. So plain is the point that even the Seventh-Day 
Adventists themselves have admitted it. Thus Elder U. 
Smith: *'The sheaf of first fruits was waved on the six- 
teenth day of the first month. This met its antitype in the 
resurrection of our Lord, the first fruits of them that slept, 
the sixteenth of the first month. * * * The feast of 
weeks, or Pentecost, occurred on the fiftietli day from the 
offering of the first fruits. The antitype of this feast, the 
Pentecost of Acts 2, was fulfilled on that very day, fifty days 
from the resurrection of Christy in the outpouring of the 
Holy Ghost upon the disciples." The Sanctuary, page 283, 
284. Fifty days from the resurrection of Christ would be 
on the first day of the week. This is just vv^hat God directed; 
it was to be on the morrow after the seventh Sabbath and on 
the fiftieth day. Lev. 23:15, 16. 

6. So the Eclectic Commentary: ''It happened on the 
first day of the week." On Acts 2. 

7. ' ' Pentecost in that year must have fallen on the first 
day of the week." The Bible Commentary on Acts £. 



8. "That the day of Pentecost fell on Sunday is und© 
niable, because the resurrection of Christ was upon a Sun' 
day, and Pentecost was the fiftieth day from the resurrec- 
tion." Bramhall's Works, V. 51. 

9. *' It consequently occurred in the year in which Christ 
died on the first day of the week, or our Sunday." Lange 
on Acts 2:1. 

10. ''The Pentecost day was Sunday." Wheadon's 
Commentary on Acts 2:1. 

Notice now the importance of that day. Jesus told the 
disciples to tarry in Jerusalem till endued with power from 
on high. Luke 24:41:9. They must begin their preaching 
there. Verse 47. On that Pentecost they were to be bap- 
tized with the Holy Ghost. Acts 1:5. In the last days of 
Judah and Jerusalem the law was to go forth out of Zion 
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem while all nations 
were gathered to it. Isa 2: 1-4. All this was fulfilled on 
Pentecost. The Holy Ghost came on the disciples in mighty 
power; then they began preaching the gospel and thousands 
were converted. This was only the first fruits of what has 
occurred, in fact, on succeeding Sundays ever since. It has 
been the great day of power and of conversions in the church 
from that day on. Thus God signally honored Sunday at 
the very opening of the gospel as he has continued to do 
ever since. 

ACTS 20: 6, 7. 

All agree that the disciples had some regular day for 
meetings. Paul said: *'Not forsaking the assembling of 
ourselves together." Heb. 10:25. This implies a regular 
time and a stated place for meetings. Reproving them for 
making the Lord's supper a feast, Paul says: '' When ye 
come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the 
Lord's supper," but rather to feast, 1 Cor. 11:20. This 
fadicates that they had a place and a time to come together 


for the supper. There is not the slightest evidence that the 
Christians ever had the Lord's supper or held distinctively 
Christian worship on the Jewish Sabbath. In every case 
"where meetings on the Sabbath are mentioned it is in con- 
nection with the regular Jewish worship. There is no record 
that Christians ever met alone for worship on that day. 
They certainly could not have had the Lord's supper in the 
synagogues on the Sabbath with the Jews. Nor is there 
the least intimation that it was ever tried. They must, 
therefore, have met by themselves in some other place than 
the synagogue and on some other day. Turning to Acts 
20: 6, 7, we read: ^'And we sailed away from Phillippi after 
the days of unleavened bread, and came unto them to Troas 
in ^Ye days; where we abode seven days. And upon the 
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to 
break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on 
the morrow." 

Here they met by themselves, and in an upper room, for 
the Lord's supper. The time is the first day of the week. 
The incidental manner in which it is mentioned shows that 
what they did was a well understood custom among them — 
" When they came together to break bread upon the first 
day of the week." Three things are mentioned: 1. They 
came together. It is mentioned as though all knew it was 
common for them to do this. 2. To break bread. This 
again is stated as though all knew that this, too, was a com- 
mon practice with Christians. 3. Upon the first day of the 
week. Like the other two items, this is mentioned as a well 
understood practice among them; hence no explanation is 
given of it. It is said that the disciples "came together," 
or assembled themselves together, a common phrase for their 
church meetings. Thus Peter ''went in and found many 
that were come together." Acts 10:27. *' Ye come together 
not for the better, * ^ * When ye come together in 


the church." 1 Cor. 11:17, 18. ''It therefore the whole 
church be come together into one place." " When ye coma 
together every one of you hath a psalm." 1 Cor. 14:23, 26. 
"Not forsaking the asserribling of yourselves together." 
Heb. 10:25. This indicates, therefore, their customary 

Notice the further fact, verse 6, that Paul was there seven 
days, yet no notice whatever is taken of the Sabbath Day, 
not even to name it, while the first day is prominently 
noticed. The breaking of bread and the assembling on the 
first day of the week, it will be noticed, are connected 
together. Notice further, that though Paul was there a 
whole week and over the Jewish Sabbath, yet the Lord's 
supper is not administered until Sunday. This shows that 
for some reason Sunday was regarded by them as the only 
proper day for it. "It shows further, that Paul tarried 
there several days waiting for the regular day of worship to 
come, the first day of the week." "And the reason assigned 
for their coming together was to hreak hread^ and not 
because Paul was there." 

Sabbatarians argue that this meeting at Troas was on 
Saturday evening and hence Paul went on his journey Sun- 
day morning. Even if this were so, it would not prove that 
Paul did not regard Sunday, for, hastening if possible to be 
at Jerusalem on Pentecost, verse 16, he had to go when the 
vessel went whether he liked to or not, for he was only a pas- 
senger. See verse 13, and chapter 21: 1, 2. But it is more 
probable that Luke reckoned time after the Roman method, 
from midnight to midnight, as John did in John 20:19. 
" The same day at evening, being the first day of the week." 
Here Sunday evening is reckoned as belonging to the first 
day. Luke wrote for the Gentiles, was a learned man him- 
self, and wrote Acts long after the resurrection, when Roman 
ways were coming more to be adopted. Moreover the 


meeting at Troas was on the first day of the week and the}/ 
departed "on the morrow," verse 7, which surely could 
not have been on the same day. 

Prof. A. Rauschenbush, of Roschester Theological Semin- 
ary, says: "These events did not occur in the time of the 
Old Testament, but of the New; not in Palestine, but upon 
the west coast of Asia Minor, nearly a thousand miles away. 
Furthermore, this was the time of Roman rule, and upon 
every land and people that the Romans conquered they 
imposed, not only their laws, but also their mode of reckon- 
ing time. Now, from their earliest history, the Romans 
began the day at midnight. At this visit of Paul to Troas 
the west coast of Asia Minor had been in their possession 
for one hundred and eighty years." Saturday or Sunday, 
page 14. Prof. Hachett, on Acts 20:7, says: "As Luke 
Lad mingled so much with foreign nations and was writing 
for Gentile readers, he would be very apt to designate the 
time in accordance with their practice; so that his evening 
or night of the first day of the week would be the end of the 
Christian Sabbath and the morning of his departure that of 
Monday. " 

This is rendered almost certain by the fact that Acts is 
addressed to " Theophilus, " who w^as not a Jew, but a 
Roman living in Italy. That the early Christians partook 
of the Lord's supper every Sunday, is acknowledged on all 

Dr Scott, on Acts 20:7, says: "This ordinance seems to 
have been constantly administered every Lord's Day." 

Shafi'-Herzog Encyclopedia, Art. " Lord's Supper" says: 
* ' Originally the communion was administered every day, 
then every Sunday." 

" It is well known that the primitive Christians adminis- 
tered the Eucharist every Lord's Day." — Doddridge. 

"In the primitive times it was the custom of many 


Churches to receive the Lord's supper every Lord's Day.'*— 
Matthew Henry. 

" Every first day of the week." — Carson. 

" All antiquity concurs in evincing that, for the first three 
centuries, all the churches broke bread once a week. " — Alex. 
Ca^npbell^ in ' ' Christian System, " page 325. Dr. Albert 
Barnes on this verse says: " It is probable that the apostles 
and early Christians celebrated the Lord's supper on every 
Lord's Day." 

The Apostolic Constitutions, about A. D. 250, says that 
on ''the Lord's Day meet more diligently ^ -^ ^ [par- 
taking of] the oblation the sacrifice, the gift of the holy 
food." Book II, section 7, paragraph 55. Again, ''We 
solemnly assemble to celebrate the feast of the resurrection 
on the Lord's Day." Book VII, section 2, paragraph 36. 

Fabian, bishop of Rome, A. D. 250: " On each Lord's 
Day the oblation of the altar should be made by all men and 
women in bread and wine." Decrees of Fabian, book V, 
chapter 7. 

These testimonies throw great light upon the passages in 
the New Testament where the first day of the week, the 
Lord's Day, is referred to. They show that a weekly cele- 
bration of that day was established in all churches by the 
apostles themselves. If Adventists could find anywhere 
after the resurrection a gathering of Christians only for 
worship on the Sabbath, it would be used by them as evi- 
dence of a custom in favor of Saturday. Let them make 
the same deduction now in favor of Sunday. 

1 COR. 16: 1-2. 

With Acts 20 let us read 1 Cor. 16: 1-2: "Now concern- 
ing the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the 
churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of 
the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God 


hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I 
come." What Paul here directs the Corinthians to do he 
had also estabhshed among the churches at Galatia, verse 1. 
And- this letter is addressed to "all that in every place call 
up>on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord." Chapter 1: 2. 
He also says that what he writes must be received as "the 
commandments of the Lord." Chapter 14: 37. Here, then, 
is an inspired commandment of the Lord Jesus touching the 
first day of the week and it is to all that call upon his name, 
This requires a definite act of religious duty to be performed 
regularly upon each recurring Sunday, for this did not relate 
to simply one first day, but to each one as it came. They 
are to lay apart on that day a portion for the poor out of 
what God gives them. This impjies that it would be with 
them a day of lesiure and devotion when they would be at 
home, have the time, and be in a proper frame of mind to do 
this benevolent act — an act of worship, "a sacrifice accepta- 
ble, well pleasing to God." Phil. 4: 18. Of old God had 
said none "shall appear before the Lord empty." Deut. 16: 
16. On 1 Cor. 16: 1-2, Dr. Clark remarks: "The apostle 
follows here the rule of the synagogue; it w^as the regular 
custom among the Jews to make their collections for the 
poor on the Sabbath day." For this purpose they had " 'The 
purse of the alms,' or what we would term the jpoor's hox. 
This is what the apostle seems to mean when he sa3^s, let 
him lay by him in store; let him put it in the alms purse or 
in the poor's box." On this text Dr. Barnes truthfully 
remarks: "There can have been no reason why this day 
should have been designated except that it was a day set 
apart to religion and therefore deemed a proper day for the 
exercise of benevolence towards others." Why did Paul 
name Sunday rather than an}' oilier day in the week if it was 
not a religious day ? 
Adventists say that this does not imply any meeting that 


day. They were only to lay by at home. But this would 
defeat the very object Paul had in view, Paul said he 
hasted to be at Jerusalem. He could not b6 delayed to 
gather up collections when he came. So they were to have 
them all collected and ready when he came. But if these 
gifts were all at their homes then the collection would have 
to be made after he came, just the thing he commanded to 
avoid, "that there be no collections when I come." Verse 2. 
Dr. Machnight renders it: "On the first day of every week, 
let each of you lay somewhat by itself according as he may 
be prospered, putting it into the treasury, that when I come, 
there may be no collections." 

We have now found four things which the disciples did on 

1. They assembled together. 2. They had a sermon. 3. 
They had the Lord's supper. 4. They gave for the poor. 
Opening to the very first of the early Christian fathers we 
find it was the custom of all Christians to do just these things 
every Sunday. Thus Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, in his 
Apology, Chapter LXVn, says: "And on the day called 
Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather to- 
gether in one place, and the memories of the apostles or the 
writings of the prophets are read, * * * bread and 
wine and water are brought, and the president in like man- 
ner ofiers prayers and thanksgiving, according to his ability, 
and the people assent, saying. Amen; and there is a distribu- 
tion to each, and a participation of that over which thanks 
have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is 
sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and 
willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is 
deposited with the president, who succors the orphans and 

This shows that our conclusion from the above texts was 
correct. Thus as we see on opening to the early apostolicaJ 


fathers immediately following the apostles, we find all 
Christians of all sects in all i)arts of the world holding their 
meetings on Sunday in remembrance of the resurrection, 
just as we do now. This shows beyond all reasonable doubt 
that the custom was established by the apostles themselves, 
and that by the authority of Christ. John 20 : 21-23. 

Consider this important fact witnessed the world over to- 
day. We have five abiding witnesses that Christ lived, all 
mentioned in the New Testament. 1st. The Church. *' I 
will build my church." Matt. 16:18. 2nd. New Testament. 
John " wrote these things." John 21 : 24. 3d. Baptisin. 
" Go baptizing them." Matt. 28 : 19. 4th. Lord's Supper, 
1 Cor. 11 : 20 ; " Eat the Lord's Supper." 5th. Lord's 
Da/y. " On the Lord's Day." Eev. 1 : 10. There are 
now about 500,000,000 people professing faith in Christ, 
scattered among all nations differing in doctrine almost 
endlessly. This difference extends back ahnost to the 
days of the apostles. Yet all these differing sects hold in 
common these five memorials of Christ's life — the Church, 
the New Testament, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, and the 
Lord's Day. The Eastern Church, the Armenian, Syrian, 
Roman Catholic, Episcopal, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, 
and hundreds more, all hold sacredly these five things in 
some form. All ao^ree that all five beo^an back with the 
apostles and came from their hands. There is perfect 
agreement on this, viz., that one is as old as the other, 
that all have come down hand in hand together. These 
500,000,000 all firmly believe and teach this. This unan- 
imous agreement must be accounted for in some reason- 
able way. It cannot be ignored nor bluffed off lightly. 
There can be only one truthful answer— all must have 
started together at the beginning and have kept together 
till this day. And all history conrtrms it. 



The one great point in the Sabbath question upon which 
Seventh-Day Adventists stake the most, upon which they in- 
sist the strongest, which they repeat the most frequently 
and the most confidently, is that the pope of Rome did 
change the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day. 
They assert that this is all the authority Sunday-keepers 
have for observing that day. Sunday is the pope's Sabbath, 
and Sunday-keeping is the mark of the beast. Rev. 14: 9-12, 
a terrible sin in the sight of God. See almost any work on 
the Sabbath published by them. 

They claim that Sunday keeping came from the pagans 
through the pope into the church. Thus: "The name, origin, 
authority, and sacredness of the Sunday institution are alto- 
gether and only pagan." Replies to Elder Canright, page 
133. Then the pope changed the Sabbath into the Sunday. 
Mrs. White says: ''The pope had changed it [the Sabbath] 
from the seventh to the first day of the week." Again: 
*'The pope has changed the day of rest from the seventh to 
first day." Early Writings, pages 26, 55. Again: "Here 
we find the mark of the beast. The very act of changing 
the Sabbath into Sunday, on the part of the Catholic 
church, without any authority from the Bible." The Mark 
of the Beast, page 23. "Sunday keeping must be the 
'mark of the beast.'" The Marvel of Nations, by U. 
Smith, page 183. To this claim Mrs. White has set the 
seal of divine inspiration. She says: "The change of the 
Sabbath is the sign or mark of the authority of the Romish 



church. " * 'The keeping of the counterfeit Sabbath is the 
reception of the mark. " Great Controversy, Vol. 4, page 

This settles it with every Seventh-Day Adventist. My 
experience is that a belief of this as a fact induces more 
persons to give up Sunday for Saturday than all other argu- 
ments made by the seventh-day people. Convince a man 
that Sunday-keeping is only a Catholic institution, a rival 
to the Lord's Sabbath and hateful to God, and of course, if 
he has any conscience, he will keep it no longer. Every one 
of them accepts this as a historical fact in fulfillment of 
Daniel 7: 25. Indeed, this is the one main pillar in their 
whole system, upon which all the rest depends. If their 
position upon this point is false, then their whole system is 
also false, as they will readily admit. On this Elder Wag- 
goner says: * 'Elder Canright did not exaggerate when he 
said that we consider this a material question. We do in- 
deed so consider it." RepUes to Elder Canright, page 
165. Then they should be able to prove the point very 
plainly. They claim to be raised up to preach against this 
change of the Sabbath by the pope. 

The unmingled wrath of God is soon to be poured out 
upon all who continue to keep Sunday, the Pope's Sabbath. 
It would seem that such a radical position should be 
supported by the clearest evidence. They claim that it is a 
historical fact that somewhere during the first five centuries 
after Christ, the pope did change the Sabbath to Sunday. 
If this be so, they should be able to produce reliable histori- 
cal proof for it, giving the time^ manner^ place^ persons^ 
facts and reasons for so remarkable an occurrence. I have 
before me two books written expressly to prove this asser- 
tion. They are: "Who Changed the Sabbath ?" 24 psiges, 
and "Marvel of Nations," 282 pages. But the only direct 
proof offered is simply quotations from Catholio Catechisms^ 


wliich claim that their church made the change ! And is this 
all the historical (?) proof they can present on this point ? 
Yes, for all that the Sabbatarian writers and scholars for 
the last 200 years have been able to find is just this and 
nothing more. Kot one single historian in all the annals 
of the world has ever stated that the pope changed the 
Sabbath. For twenty-eight years I myself quoted these 
catechisms as proof positive on that subject. 

Goaded by my call for proof on this point, the Adventists 
selected Elder Waggoner to answer it, to find some author 
who says that the pope changed the Sabbath. The elder 
made a desperate attempt, covering forty -nine closely 
printed pages. He searched the libraries of America and 
Europe. What did he find ? If he had a passage to the point, 
he could have quoted it in a few lines. But he had none. 
Not a single author did he quote saying that the pope 
changed the Sabbath. So it rests merely on the claim of just 
these Catholic Catechisms. Then if we admit on their mere 
assertion the boastful claim of the Catholics that they 
changed the Sabbath, why not also admit their claim that 
the pope is infallible, that he has the keys of St. Peter, the 
chair of the apostle, the only true apostolic succession, etc. ? 
Seventh-Day people quickly repudiate all these other claims 
of the Catholics, but eagerly admit their claim that they 
changed the Sabbath, simply because this suits their theory, 
for which they can find no other proof. They denounce 
Catholic writers as forgers, cheats, deceivers and liars, then, 
when it suits their purpose, turn around and quote their 
mere assertions as unquestionable truth ! 

Moreover, even the claims of the Catechism are misrepre- 
sented. The theory is that some hundreds of years after 
Christ the pope, by his own authority, changed the Sabbath, 
and the Catechisms are explained to teach this idea. But 
not one of them make such a claim or anything like it. 


Every one of these Catholic quotations states distinctly that 
the change in the Sabbath was made, not by the pope, but 
**by the church" in the days of Christ and the apostles, not 
several hundred years afterward. Thus: 

"Question. What are the days which the church com- 
mands to be kept holy ? 

"Answer. 1. The Sunday, or our Lord's day, which we 
observe by apostolic tradition, instead of the Sabbath." 
Catholic Christian Instructed, page 209. 

From the same work, we take the following: 

"Question. What warrant have you forkeeping the Sunday, 
preferable to the ancient Sabbath, which was the Saturday? " 

"Answer. We have for it the authority of the Catholic 
church, and apostolic tradition." 

Catholics claim that their "church" originated in the days 
of the apostles, and any change made by the apostolic 
church was made by the Catholic church. Hence they claim 
that the "Catholic church" changed the Sabbath in the days 
of the apostles. Adventists in using these quotations from 
the Catechisms explain them as saying that the change was 
made by the apostate popes hundreds of years after the 
apostles. But the Catechisms claim no such thing, as is seen 
in the above quotations. Thus even the Catechisms, when 
fairly read, teach that Sunday observance originated with 
the Christian church in the days of the apostles, just th© 
truth exactly. 

That Adventists do misrepresent the teachings of the 
Catholics is shown by the following: 


" Having lived for years among the Seventh-Day Advent- 
ists, I am familiar with their claims that the Pope of Rome 
changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of the , 
week. Such assertions are wholly unfounded. Catholics 


claim no such thing; but maintain that the apostles them- 
selves established the observance of Sunday and that we 
received it by tradition from them. The councils and popes 
afterwards simply confirmed the keeping of the day as 
received from the apostles. John Meiler, 

Rector of St. John's Church, Healdsburg, Cal." 

The *' Catholic, Dictionary," by Addis and Arnold, aftei 
quoting Rev. 1:10; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1, 2 says: These 
texts "seem to indicate that Sunday was already a sacred 
day on which deeds of love were specially suitable. Heb. 
10:25 shows this much: that the Christians, when the epistle 
was written, had regular days of assembly. The scriptural 
references given above show that the observance of Sunday 
had begun in the apostolic age; but even were Scripture 
silent tradition would put this point beyond all doubt. " 

John Ankatell, A. M., priest of the diocese of New York, 
writing in the Outlook, July, 1889, says of Sunday, the 
Lord's Day: " We thinlt it was given by our Lord to the 
apostles during the great forty days after his resurrection, 
but we cannot prove this. " He states the Catholic doctrine 
exactly, viz: That the change was made by Christ and the 
apostles, but that the scriptures are not plain enough on this 
point to prove it; hence we have to rely upon Catholic 
authority which says it was made in New Testament times. 
All Catholics and all their catechisms say the same. But this 
is entirely different from saying that the pope made the 
change several hundred years after Christ. This is a sample 
of how Adventists pervert the testimony they use/ 

We will now present historical evidence, proving that the 
observance of the first day of the week as a day of worship 
was universal among Christians in the days immediately fol- 
lowing the apostles. If Sunday worship originated here, 
then it did not originate with the papacy, which came up 
several hundred years later. 

* See Appendix E. 

did the pope change the sabbath? 215 

pliny's lettek, a. d. 107. 

Pliny was governor of Bithynia, Asia Minor, A. D. 106- 
108. He wrote A. D. 107 to Trajan, the emperor, concern- 
ing the Christians, thus: *' They were wont to meet together, 
on a stated day before it was light, and sing among them- 
selves alternately a hymn to Christ as God. ^ -^ -5^ When 
these things were performed, it was their custom to separate 
and then to come together again to a meal which they ate in 
common without any disorder." Hornets Introduction, Vol. 
I, chapter 3, section 2, page 84. That this was Sunday is 
evident. 1. They came together to worship Christ. 2. 
They assembled to eat a meal together, the Lord's supper. 
We have already proved that the "stated day" for this was 
Sunday. "Upon the first day of the week when the dis- 
ciples came together to break bread." * Acts 20:7. This is 
exactly parallel to Pliny. 

Eusebius, the historian, A. D. 324, says: "I think that 
he [the Psalmist] describes the morning assemblies in which 
we are accustomed to assemble throughout the world." 
"By this is prophetically signified the service which is per- 
formed very early and every morning of the resurrection 
day throughout the whole world." Sabbath Manual, page 
125. This is exactly what Pliny says: They met together 
" on a stated day before it was light;" they assembled to 
eat together a meal. Eusebius sa^^s it was the custom of all 
Christians " to meet very early and every morning of the 
resurrection day." This ought to settle it and does. Pliny's 
stated day was Sunday. This was in the very region where 
the apostles labored, and only eleven years after St. John 
died. Elder Andrews, Sabbatarian, saj^s: *' This testimony 
of Pliny was written a few years subsequent to the time of 
the apostles. It relates to a church which probably had 
been founded by the apostle Peter." Hist. Sab., page 237. 
It shows that the apostles taught Sunday keeping. 


BARNABAS, A. D. 120. 

This epistle was highly prized in the earUest churches, 
read in some of them as part of scripture, and is found in 
the oldest manuscript of the scriptures, namely the Sinaitic. 
That it was written by a pious man of learning and influence 
cannot be doubted. Elder Andrews, Seventh-Day Advent- 
ist, admits that the epistle of Barnabas *'was in existence as 
early as the middle of the second century, and, like the 
* Apostolical Constitutions,' is of value to us in that it gives 
some clue to the opinions which prevailed in the region 
where the writer lived." Testimon}^ of the Fathers, page 21. 

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: *' The epistle was 
probaly written in Alexandria at the beginning of the second 
century and by a Gentile Christian." The Encyclopedia 
Brittanica, the highest critical authority, says: ''This work 
is unanimously ascribed to Barnabas, the companion of St. 
Paul, by early Christian writers. * * * But the great 
majority of critics assign it to the reign of Hadrian sometime 
between 119 and 126 A. D." Smith's Dictionary of the 
Bible says: "The epistle is believed to have been writter 
early in the second century." Johnson's New Universal 
Cyclopedia says: It "is supposed by Hefele to have been 
written between 107-120 A. D. * * * It is frequently 
cited by the Fathers, and was by many regarded as being of 
authority in the church; some even claiming for it a place in 
the sacred canon." 

This is a summary of the best modern criticism as to the 
date, character and authority of the epistle of Barnabas. 
Read and reverenced in the church as next to the gospels 
themselves as early as A. D. 120, or within twenty-four 
years of the death of St. John, it shows what Christians 
believed and practiced immediately after the apostles. In 
this epistle we read: "Incense is a vain abomination unto 
me, and your new moons and Sabbaths I cannot endure. 


He has, therefore, abolished these things." Chapter 11. 
Elder Andrews admits that ' ' he presently asserts the aboli- 
tion of the Sabbath of the Lord." '' Testimony," etc., page 
22. Coming to the first day of the week, Barnabas says: 
''Wherefore, also, we keep the eighth day with joy fulness, 
the day, also, on which Jesus rose again from the dead." 
Chapter 15. 

What does Elder Andrews say to this testimony ? He 
admits that it teaches the abolition of the Jewish Sabbath 
and the keeping of Sunday. But he argues that such a doc- 
trine is contrary to the Bible; that is, to his ideas of the 
Bible, While I was yet a firm believer in the seventh day, 
when reading this book, I was struck with the fact that Elder 
Andrews, all through his book, had to oppose and combat 
the teachings of all these early fathers ! The reason is mani- 
fest: he held one doctrine and they held another. He believed 
in the seventh day, and they believed in the first day. Some 
of them lived early enough to have conversed with the apos- 
tles themselves, while he lived eighteen hundred years later ! 
Which would be apt to know the best ? 

In his "History of the Sabbath," page 308, he says: 
" The reasons ofiered by the early fathers for neglecting the 
observance of the Sabbath show conclusively that they had 
no special light on the subject by reason of living in the first 
centuries, which we in this latter age do not possess." What 
a confession that is from the ablest historian the seventh day 
ever had! He admits that "the early fathers" "in the 
first centuries" nedected "the observance of the Sabbath." 
What further need have we for witness to prove that the 
seventh day was not observed in the first centuries ? But 
how does this harmonize with the theory that the Sabbath 
was changed to Sunday by the pope several hundred years 
afterwards? Suppose those early fathers were not good 
theologians, nor able reasoners; could they not testify to a 


simple fact f Could they not state whether they did or did 
not keep Saturday ? Surely they knew enough for that, 
and this is all we wish to ask. 

We do not quote these fathers to prove a doctrine; for 
that we go only to the Bible. We quote them to prove a 
simple, historical yac?^, viz : that the early Christians did keep 
Sunday, hence it could not have started with the popes 
centuries later. 


This was not written by the apostles; yet its date is very 
early. Some place it as early as A. D. 80. Pro- 
fessor Harnack, of Berlin, says many place it between 
A. D. 90, and A. D. 120. This is the date most 
favored. It can not be much later. The New York Inde- 
pendent says of it: "By all odds the most important writ- 
ing exterior to New Testament." Professor D. K. Dungan, 
President of Drake University, says: "It is evident that it 
is not far on this side of the death of the apostle John." The 
noted scholar. Rev. Wilbur F. Crafts, in his Sabbath for Man, 
page 383, says: It was "written, as the best scholars almost 
unanimously agree, not later than forty years after the death 
of the last of the apostles, and during the lifetime of many 
who had heard John's teaching." In the preface to this im- 
portant document, the editors. Profs. Hitchcock and Brown in 
the Union Theological Seminary, N. Y., say: "The genuine- 
ness of the document can hardly be doubted." "The docu- 
ment belongs undoubtedly to the second century; possibly as 
far back as 120 A. D. ; hardly later than 160." Introduction. 

Chapter fourteen of the Teaching of the Apostles says: 
"But every Lord's day do ye gather yourselves together, 
and break bread, and give thanksgiving," etc. This testi- 
mony is clear and decisive that the Lord's day was the 
established day of worship, at that early day. 



I quote from "The Complete Testimony of the Fathers," 
by Elder Andrews: "Justin's 'Apology' was written at 
Rome about the year 140," "and this at a distance of only 
forty-four years from the date of John's vision upon Patmos." 
"It does not appear that Justin, and those at Rome who 
held with him in doctrine, paid the slightest regard to the 
ancient Sabbath. He speaks of it as abolished, and treats it 
with contempt." Page 33. 

This is the confession which even the historian of the 
Seventh-Day Adventists is compelled to make. The Jewish 
Sabbath was wholly disregarded by Christians within forty- 
four years of the death of the last apostle. And this is 
proven by the testimony of a man who lived right there. 

Hear Elder A. again: "We must, therefore, pronounce 
Justin a man who held to the abrogation of the ten com- 
mandments, and that the Sabbath was a Jewish institution 
which was unknown before Moses, and of no authority since 
Christ. He held Sunday to be the most suitable day for 
public worship. " Page 44. This is the doctrine that the 
early church and fathers held. Justin in his "Apology" for 
them to the emperor fairly represented what Christians gen- 
erally held then, just as he should have done. Elder An- 
drews conveys the impression that Justin represented only 
a small party of apostate Christians at Rome and that he is 
quite unreliable. But the facts are just the reverse. He 
was a Greek, born in Palestine and held his ' 'Dialosfue with 
Trypho," at Ephesus, Asia Minor, in the church where St. 
John lived and died, the very center of the Eastern church, 
and only forty-four years after John's death. Of Justin the 
the Encyclopedia Americana says: "One of the earliest and 
most learned writers of the Christian church. * * * 
He was also equally zealous in opposing alleged heri- 
tics." Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia says: "In these works 


Justin professes to present the system of doctrine held 
by all Christians and seeks to be orthodox on all points.. 
The only dijQference he knows of as existing between Chris- 
tians concerned the millennium. Thus Justin is an incon- 
trovertible witness for the unity of the faith in the church of 
his day, and to the fact that the Gentile type of Christianity 
prevailed. " 

'^Eusebius says that he overshadowed all the great men 
who illummated the second century by the splendor of his 
name." His writings are "the most important that have 
come to us from the second century." McClintock and 
Strong's Encyclopedia, Article Justin Martyr. 

Dr. Schaff says of him : ' 'After his conversion Justin de- 
voted himself wholly to the vindication of the Christian 
religion, as an itinerant evangelist, with no fixed abode." 
Church History, Yol. 1, page 482. Not only were his books 
accepted without dispute as expressing the practice of the 
church, but his itinerant life, now in Palestine, then in Rome, 
Greece and Ephesus, enabled him to know this practice, and 
stamps his testimony with a force equal to demonstration. 
So, then, Justin is an unimpeachable witness for the faith 
and practice of Christians generally a few years after the 
death of the apostles. 

Now hear what Justin says about the first day of the 
week: "And on the day called Sunday, all who live in 
cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the 
memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are 
read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has 
ceased, the president verbally instructs and exhorts to the 
imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together 
and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, 
bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in 
like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to 
his ability, and the people assent, saying, Amen; and there 


is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over 
which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent 
a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to 
do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is col- 
lected is deposited with the president, who succors the 
orphans and widows, and those who, through sickness or 
any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds, 
and the strangers sojourning among us, and, in a word, takes 
care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on 
which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the 
first day on which God, having wrought a change in the dark- 
ness and matter, made the world; and Jesui Christ, our 
Saviour, on the same day rose from the dead. For he was 
crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on 
the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the sun, 
having appeared to his apostles and disciples, he taught them 
these things, which we have submitted to you also for 
your consideration." The First Apology of Justin^ Chap- 
ter 67. 

Does Elder Andrews question the genuineness of this 
document ? No, indeed. What answer does he make to it ? 
Simply that Justin does not call Sunday the Sabbath nor the 
Lord's day! This is readily answered by the fact that 
Justin was writing to a heathen emperor who would have 
been wholly ignorant of the meaning of either of those terms, 
but who was familiar with the tenii "Sunday." So Justin 
of necessity used that term. But there the naked facts stand, 
clear, positive and undeniable, that within forty-four years 
after the book of Revelation was written Christians did not 
keep the seventh day, but did hold their assemblies on Sun- 
day. And Justin says that Jesus taught these things to the 
apostles. With these undeniable facts before him, it is a 
marvel how any man can say that the Sabbath was changed 
to Sunday three or four hundred years after this by the 


apostate popes. For myself I became fully satisfied that 
such statements are contrary to all the plainest facts of 
history, as may be seen by the above unquestioned state- 
ment of Justin Martyr. 

It is impossible that Sunday-keeping could have thus been 
universally introduced into all churches without a word of 
objection, unless it had started at the fountain-head, with the 
apostles themselves. Consider well the force of this fact: 
From the very earliest days, reaching almost back to the 
apostles themselves, the church was divided into opposing 
sects, and controversy between them was often very strong. 
Yet all agreed in keeping Sunday. So to-day: go to any 
part of the globe and wherever you find Christians of any 
sect or nation, there you find them keeping Sunday. A few 
Sabbatarians of late origin are the only exceptions to this. 
How did this universal custom come about if not started at 
the very foundation of the church by the apostles themselves? 


But we will hear further from these fathers themselves as 
to whether they kept Sunday. Dionysius, Bishop of Cor- 
inth, the church which Paul raised up and to which he gave 
the command about Sunday collections, 1 Cor. 16: 1-S, says: 
"We passed this holy Lord's day, in which we read your 
letter, from the constant reading of which we shall be able 
to draw admonition." Eusebius, Eccl. History, Book 4, 
Chapter XXIII. That the Lord's day is the resurrection 
day we have seen. This term is never applied to any other 
than the first day. Notice that this witness is from Greece, not 
Rome. So the resurrection day was a "holy" day, A. D. 170. 


Coming down only ten years later we have the testimony 
of the heretic Bardesanes, the Syrain, who flourished about 


A. D. 180. He belonged to the Gnostic sect. He says: 
*'0n one day, the first day of the week, we assembled our- 
selves together, and on the days of the readings we abstain 
from [taking] sustenance." Book of the Laws of Countries. 
Says Elder A. : "This shows that the Gnostics used Sunday 
as the day for religious assemblies." Testimony, etc., page 
53. Here is another good testimony for Sunday, and another 
good confession from Elder A. All parties, orthodox and 
heretic, kept Sunday as early as A. D. 180. How, then, is it 
that Constantine and the pope changed the Sabbath to Sun- 
day two to four hundred years later ? Elder A's own words 
utterly refute such an idea. 

Notice here also a refutation of the idea so strongly urged 
by Sabbatarians, that Sunday-keeping originated at Rome, 
and was for a long time confined there. Elder Andrews has 
to admit that the Gnostics at this date used Sunday as a day 
of worship. But, 1. The Gnostics were emphatically an 
eastern sect, originating in Syria, and w^re most numerous 
in Alexandria, Asia Minor, and the East- Rome never had 
any influence over them. Bardesanes himself lived at 
Edessa, in Mesopotamia, 1,500 miles east of Rome, on 
another continent, under another nation. 2. This sect was 
numerous in the East as early as A. D. 150, or 55 years 
after the death of John. So we have Sunday-keeping not 
only at Rome but all over the east as early as A. D. 150, 
hundreds of years before the pope had a particle of influence 


Clement was one of the most celebrated of the Christian 
fathers. He wrote about A. D. 194. He says: "He, in 
fulfillment of the precept, keeps the Lord's day when he 
abandons an evil disposition, and assumes that of the Gnos- 
tic, glorifying the Lord's resurrection in himself." Book T, 


Chapter XII. The Lord's day, it will be seen here and all 
along, is the resurrection day. Clement lived, not at Rome, 
but in Egypt. So Sunday-keeping was not simply a Roman 
usage as Adventists claim. 


Tertullian was one of the most noted of the early fathers. 
Was born A. D. 160. He was highly educated, bred to the 
law, and very talented. Brought up a pagan, he was con- 
verted to Christ and vehemently opposed heathenism ever 
after. Radically severe in his principles, opposed to all 
conformity to the world, the laxity of the Roman church 
drove him to withdraw from it, which he ever after hotly 
opposed. So he was not a Romanist, nor did Rome have 
a particle of influence over him only to drive him the other 
way. He was strictly orthodox in faith and a lover of 
the scriptures. Hence if it were true that Sunday keeping, 
as a heathen institution, was being introduced into the 
church by Rome, Tertullian is just the man who would have 
opposed and fearlessly condemned it. 

Johnson's Cyclopedia says of him: ^'One of the greatest 
men of the early church." He "joined the Puritanic sect of 
the Montanists. They were orthodox in doctrine, but 
stern in spirit and discipline." '' He remained true to the 
faith of the Catholics, but fought them vehemently on mat 
ters of morality and discipline. He was also a representative 
of the African opposition to Rome." The Schafi-Herzog 
Cyclopedia says of him: '' One of the grandest and most 
original characters of the ancient church." "Greek phi- 
losophy he despised." Of his great book they say: "One 
of the magnificent monuments of the ancient church." 
Authon's Classical Dictionary says of him: "He informs 
us more correctly than any other writer respecting the 
Christian doctrines of his time. * * * Tertullian 


was held in very high esteem by the subsequent fathers of 
the church." Neander says: ^'Tertullian is a writer of 
peculiar importance. " Rose's Neander, page 424. 

Here then is a competent and unimpeachable witness to 
the doctrines and practices of the universal church, A. D. 
200, or only 104 years after John. Time and again he 
argues that the Sabbath was abolished, that Christians do 
not keep it, but do keep Sunday, the Lord's Day. Of the 
abolition of the Sabbath he says: "Let him who contends 
that the Sabbath is still to be observed * * * teach us 
that for the past time righteous men kept the Sabbath." 
' ' God originated Adam uncircumsised and inobservant of 
the Sabbath." So he says Abel, Noah, Enoch, etc., were 
" inobservant of the Sabbath." Answer to the Jews, chap- 
ter 2. Again: "The old law is demonstrated as having 
been consummated at its specific times, so also the observ- 
ance of the Sabbath is demonstrated to have been tem- 
porary." Chapter 4. " We solemnize the day after Satur- 
day in contradistinction to those who call this day their Sab- 
bath, and devote it to ease and eating, deviating from the 
old Jewish customs, which they are now very ignorant of." 
Tertullian's Apology, chapter 16. Tertullian again declares 
that his brethren did not observe the days held sacred by 
the Jews: "We neither accord with the Jews in their 
peculiarities in regard to food, nor in their sacred days." 
"We, however (just as we have received), only on the day 
of the Lord's resurrection ought to guard not only against 
kneeling, but every posture and office of solicitude; deferring 
even our business, lest we give any place to the devil. "Ter- 
tuUian on Prayer, chapter 23. Sunday, then, was observed 
by Christians at that early date, but Saturday was not. 

ORIGEN, A. D. 225. 
Origen (about A. D. 225) was a man of immense learning, 
and his writings are numerous. '' Origen may well be pro 


nounced one of the ablest and worthiest of the church 
fathers." McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia. He says: 
'' If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are 
accustomed to observe certain days, as, for example, the 
Lord's Day, the preparation, the passover, or pentecost." 
Origen against Celsus, book 8, chapter 22. This plainly 
shows that he did observe the Lord's Day. Origen's home 
was in Egypt, but he traveled all over the East and died at 
Tyre. Notice that witnesses for Sunday came from all parts 
of the world, not one from Kome. 


Of the * 'Apostolical Constitutions" (A. D. 250) Elder 
Andrews says: ''The so-called 'Apostolical Constitutions' 
were not the work of the apostles, but they werein existence 
as early as the third century, and were then very generally 
believed to express the doctrine of the apostles. They do 
therefore furnish important historical testimony to the prac- 
tice of the church at that time. Mosheira, in his ' Histori- 
cal Commentaries,' Cent. 1, section 51, spi'iaks thus of these 
' constitutions': ' The matter of this work i<^ unquestionably 
ancient; since the manners and discipline of ^vhich it exhibits 
a view are those which prevailed among the Christians of the 
second and third centuries, especially those resident in 
Greece and the oriental regions.'" Testimony, etc., page 
13. Notice again that this work was the product of the 
eastern church and hence shows the custom of the church in 
the east instead of that at Rome. 

These, then, will be good witnesses to the practice of the 
church about A. D. 250. In section 7, paragraph 59, wo 
read: "And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which 
is the Lord's Day, meet more diUgently, sending praise to 
God that made the universe by Jesus and sent him to us.'' 
*' Otherwise what apology will he make to God who does 


not assemble on that day to hear the saving word concern- 
ing the resurrection." In book 7, section 2, paragraph 30, 
he says: *' On the day of the resurrection of the Lord, that 
is, the Lord's Day, assemble yourselves together, without 
fail, giving thanks to God," etc. Li the same paragraph, 
in speaking of the resurrection of Christ, the writer says: 
*'0n which account we solemnly assemble to celebrate the 
feast of the resurrection on the Lord's Day," etc. 

These testimonies are decisive, and do show beyond a 
doubt that the Christians of those early days used Sunday 
just as it is used now for religious worship. Did they, then, 
have "the mark of the beast" at least 250 years before the 
beast had arisen, according to the Seventh-Day Adventists' 
theory ? These unquestionable facts of history, taken from 
their own published works and admitted by them to be true, 
show the utter absurdity of their position that Sunday-keep- 
ing is the mark of the beast. 


He was bishop of Laodicea, Asia Minor. Not a Roman, 
but a Greek. This church was raised up by Paul himself, 
and must have been well acquainted with the apostle's doc- 
trine. In his seventh canon Anatolius says: " The obHga- 
tion of the Lord's resurrection binds us to keep the paschal 
festival on the Lord's Day." In his tenth canon he uses this 
language: " The solemn festival of the resurrection of the 
Lord can be celebrated only on the Lord's Day." In his 
sixteenth canon he says: " Our regard for the Lord's resur- 
rection which took place on the Lord's Day will lead us to 
celebrate it on the same principle." See how all these early 
Christians call the resurrection day " the Lord's Day" and 
how they honor it. How entirely diJSerent from our Sab 
batarians who can hardly find terms mean enough by which 
to express their contempt for Sunday I Why is this differ- 
ence and what does it show ? 



*'0n the former day [the sixth] we are accustomed to fast 
rigorously that on the Lord's Day we may go forth to our 
bread with giving of thanks. And let the parasceve become 
a rigorous fast lest we should appear to observe any Sabbath 
with the Jews which Christ himself, the Lord of the Sabbath, 
says by his prophets that his soul hateth which Sabbath he in 
his body abolished." Creation of the World, section 4. 


"But the Lord's day we celebrate as a day of joy, because 
on it he rose again, on which day we have received it for a 
custom not even to bow the knee." Canon 15. He gives the 
same reason 1581 years ago for keeping the Lord's day that 
Christians give now. This was more than 200 years before the 
pope came into power. Notice that these witnesses for Sun- 
day are from all parts of the world, from Africa, Asia and 
Europe, not simply from Rome, as Seventh-Day Adventists 
untruthfully say. These show that Sunday -keeping was as 
widespread as the Christian Church itself, and that from the 
earliest days. 

EU8BBIU8, A. D. 324. 

Eusebius was born in Palestine, the very home of Christ 
and the apostles and the cradle of the early church. He 
was bishop of Cesarea where Paul abode two years. Acts 
23: 33; 24: 27. He studied at Antioch where Paul labored 
for years. Acts 15: 1. He traveled to Egypt and over 
Asia Minor. He was one of the most noted men of his age. 
He wrote the first history of the Christian church and bears 
the title of "Father of Church History." The Schafi'-Herzog 
Encyclopedia says: "As a repertory of facts and documents, 
his work is invaluable." Johnson's Cyclopedia says: "He 
was very eminent for learning, as well as talents. " Home's 


Introductions says: "A man of extraordinary learning, 
diligence and judgment, and singularly studious in the scrip- 
tures. * * ^ His chief work is his Ecclesiastical His- 
tory, in which he records the history of Christianity from 
its commencement to his own time. ♦ * * He has de- 
livered, not his own private opinion, but the opinion of the 
church, the sum of what he had found in the writings of the 
primitive Christians." Vol. 1, Chapter 11, Section 2, page 12. 

He had every possible opportunity to know what Chris- 
tians did throughout the world. Of him Justin Edwards, 
D. D., says: "He lived in the third century, was a man of 
vast reading, and was as well acquainted with the history of 
the church from the days of the apostles as any man of his 
day. " At Cesarea was ' 'a very extensive library, to which 
Eusebius had constant access. He was a learned and 
accurate historian and had the aid of the best helps for 
acquiring information upon all subjects connected with 
the Christian church." Sabbath Manual, pages 124-125. 
He lived right there, knew just what Christians did, and 
wrote about fifty years before the council of Laodicea 
where Adventists say the Sabbath was changed to Sunday. 
Hear him: Speaking of the patriarchs before the flood, he 
says: "They did not, therefore, regard circumcision, nor 
ohserve the Sabhath^ neither do we; * * * because such 
things as these do not belong to Christians." Eccl. Hist., 
Book 1, Chapter 4. This is decisive. A. D. 324, Christians 
did not keep the Sabbath. 

True, there was a small heretical sect who kept the Sab- 
bath as Judaizers do now. Of them he says: They 
are "those who cherish low and mean opinions of 
Christ. * * * With them the observance of the law 
was altogether necessary [just like Seventh-Day Adventists] 
as if they could not be saved only by faith in Christ and a 
corresponding life. * * * They also observe the Sab- 


bath and other discipline of the Jews just like them, but on 
the other hand they also celebrate the Lord's Days very 
much like us in commemoration of his resurrection." Eccl. 
Hist,, pages 112-113. Even these Judaizers kept Sunday. 
On the Ninety-second Psalm he says: "The word by the 
new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sab- 
bath to the morning light and gave us the true rest, viz., 
the saving Lord's Day." "On this day which is the first of 
light and of the true Sun, we assemble, after an interval 
of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbaths, even 
all nations redeemed hy him throughout the worlds and do 
th(jse things according to the spiritual law which were decreed 
for the priests to do on the Sabbath." Again: "And all 
things whatsoever that it was the duty to do on the Sab- 
bath, these we have transferred to the Lord's Day as more 
honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." Quoted in Justin 
Edwards' Sabbath Manual, pages 126-127. 

This testimony of the great historian of the early church 
is decisive. It puts it beyond doubt that Christians in all 
the world did then keep Sunday, the Lord's Day, and did 
not keep the Jewish Sabbath. It is a desperate cause which 
has to deny such testimony as this. 


As a fair, impartial and clear statement of the teachings 
of the early Christian fathers concerning the observance of 
Sunday, we refer the reader to the following from Smith's 
Dictionary of the Bible, article "Lord's Day." Here is a 
book easy of access to all anywhere, un sectarian, embodying 
the results of the most thorough and scholarly examination 
of every passage in all the fathers having any bearing upon 
the Sunday question. Any one who has read the fathers 
must confess that its statements are fair and truthful. I have 
only room for one short quotation: 


"The results of our examination of the principle writers 
of the two centuries after the death of St. John, are as fol- 
lows: 'The Lord's day existed during these two centuries as 
a part and parcel of apostolical, and so of Scriptural Chris- 
tianity. It was never defended; for it was never impugned, 
or at least only impugned as were other things received 
from the apostles. It was never confounded with the 
Sabbath, but carefully distinguished from it. * -^ * 
* * * It was not an institution of severe Sab- 
batical character, but a day of joy and cheerfulness, 
rather encouraging than forbidding relaxation. Relig- 
iously regarded, it was a day of solemn meeting for the 
holy eucharist, for united prayer, for instruction, for alms- 
giving; and though being an institution under the law of 
liberty, work does not appear to have been formally inter- 
dicted, or rest formally enjoined. Tertullian seems to indi- 
cate that the character of the day was opposed to worldly 
business. Finally, whatever analogy may be supposed to 
exist between the Lord's day and the Sabbath, in no passage 
that has come down to us is the fourth commandment ap- 
pealed to as the ground of the obligation to observe the 
Lord's day." 

So Johnson's New Universal Cyclopaedia, Art. Sabbath, 
says: "For a time the Jewish converts observed both the 
seventh day, to which the name Sabbath continued to be 
given exclusively, and the first day, which came to be called 
the Lord's day. * * * Within a century after the death 
of the last of the apostles we find the observance of the first 
day of the week, under the name of the Lord's day, estab- 
lished as a universal custom of the church. * ^ "^ It 
was regarded not as a continuation of the Jewish Sab- 
bath (which was denounced together Avith circumcision and 
other Jewish and anti-Christian practices), but rather as a 
substitute for it, and naturally its observance was based on 


the resurrection of Christ rather than on the creation rest 
day, or the Sabbath of the Decalogue." 

No higher authority than this could he quoted. It states 
the truth exactly. So the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, Art. 
Sunday, says: *'In the second century its observance was 
universal. * * * Xhe Jewish Christians ceased to ob- 
serve the Sabbath after the destruction of Jerusalem." 

Dr. Schaff, than whom there is no higher living authority, 
says: "The universal and uncontradicted Sunday obser- 
vance in the second century can only be explained by the fact 
that it had its roots in apostolic practice." History of the 
Christian church, Vol. I, page 478. 

The man who will shut his eyes to all this mass of testi- 
mony and still insist that Sunday-keeping is only an institu- 
tion of popes of later ages, is simply held by a theory which 
he is bound to maintain anyway. I have had a sad experi- 
ence in this matter, and know just how a seventh-day man 
feels in reading these historical facts. I read some of them 
twenty years ago. They perplexed me some, but I got over 
this by my strong faith in our doctrines and by believing 
them to be mostly forgeries. Afterwards as I read more, I 
saw these testimonies were reliable and very decidedly 
against our theory of the pope's Sunday. This disturbed 
me quite a little, but still I got over them by simply ceasing 
to think of them at all, and by dwelling upon other argu- 
ments in which I had perfect confidence. In debate I was 
always anxious to shut these out of the discussion. I know 
that Seventh-Day Adventist ministers generally feel as I 
did, for we often referred to these testimonies of the 
fathers and the effect they had in debate. Of course, the 
great body of the members never read these things, and are 
in blissful ignorance concerning them. Or, if they do read 
them, it is in their own books where they are all explained 
away. Their unbounded faith in "the message" and in their 


leaders carries them right over these facts as matters of no 

For myself, when once I decided to look these historical 
facts squarely in the face and give them whatever force they 
fairly deserved, I soon saw the utter falsity of the claim that 
the "pope changed the Sabbath." The old feeling of un- 
easiness on this point is entirely gone. I feel that so far as 
the evidence of history is concerned, my feet stand on solid 




What answer do Sabbatarians make to all the preceding 
testimony ? This: 

1. ''The Bible, the Bible only, is our rule. We don't 
go by history." Reply: Why then do they themselves 
appeal to history ? No people depend so much upon history, 
none refer to it so often, none make so great claims from it 
as Seventh-Day Adventists. Thus Andrews' book on the 
Sabbath contains 512 pages. Of these 192 are on the Bible 
and 320 on history. Yet they don't go by history! Where- 
ever they can find a scrap in their favor they make the most 
of it. Of their reliance on history Elder Smith says: ''One 
of the grandest facts we have to present is that God has al- 
ways had witnesses to his holy Sabbath from the days of 
Adam till now." Replies to Elder Canright, pages 41-42. 
Mark: One of the grandest facts they have to present in 
favor of Saturday is what ? Bible testimony ? No, but 
witness from history. Yet, they don't go by history ! The 
fact is they quote history whenever they possibly can. 
Why, then, cry out against history when we follow them 
there? Because it is against them. 

2. They say that " the early fathers are unreHable, fools, 
apostates, forgers and frauds." Listen to them: Of one 
of the fathers Elder Smith says: "A fraud, an impostor, a 
forger. •» * * An old forger of the second century who 
wrote things too silly to be repeated and too shameful to 
quote." Replies to Elder Canright, page 39. Hear Elder 



Waggoner: " Surely insanity could not produce any more 
driveling nonsense than this. " *'Such childish nonsense is 
seldom seen under the heading of reason." " It would have 
been a blessing to the world if they had all been lost." 
Fathers of the Catholic Church, pages 206, 209, 217. This 
is the way they dispose of all the Christian fathers who said 
a word in favor of Sunday. No doubt it would have been 
better for those who keep the Jewish Sabbath if all the 
Christian fathers had been lost and, better still, if the New 
Testament also had been lost, for both these are against 
them. Why this effort to break down the testimony of these 
early Christian writers ? Because they are against them and 
Sabbatarians know it. Whatever crude notions those 
fathers might have had, they could state a simple fact of 
their own days as to whether they did, or did not, keep Sun- 
day. They all agree that they did and their testimony is 

But how much is there to their charge of fraud, forgery, 
etc. ? Just this: In those days the author's name was not 
always signed to his book; hence it sometimes happened 
that a book was attributed to the wrong author by mistake. 
No fraud or forgery was designed or practiced by any one. 
Look at Hebrews. No name is signed to it. It is still a 
disputed point as to who wrote it, Paul, Barnabas, or some 
other apostle. Shall we, therefore, call it a " fraud" and 
throw it out of the Bible ? No. So of the epistle of Barna- 
bas for instance. No name was signed to it, yet it was 
generally attributed to the apostle Barnabas and was read 
in all the churches as authority as early as A. D. 120. Some 
attributed it to others; but all agree that it was written as 
early as A. D. 120 by some Christian and gave the opinion 
and customs of the church at that time. " Fraud, fraud," 
cry the Sabbatarians, "Barnabas never wrote it." Well, 
what of it ? Some Christian wrote it within twenty-five 


years of John's death and it says that Christians then kept 

3. " None of the fathers call Sunday the Sabbath." So 
say the Sabbatarians. That is about right. The early 
church said with Paul, Col. 2:16, that the Sabbath was 
abolished with other Jewish rites. The first day was not 
the Sabbath, but "the Lord's Day," "the eighth day," 
"resurrection day," etc. 

4. Sabbatarians say that Christians worked on Sunday 
during the first century or longer, Their evidence for this 
is very questionable as we will soon see. Yet possibly at 
first the day may not have been observed as strictly as later 
on; but still it was the day on which all Christians met for 
their worship according to the custom of the apostles. This 
is what we claim and have abundantly proved. 

6. Sabbatarians say: "The Christians kept the Sabbath 
for centuries after Christ." Reply: All history abundantly 
shows that the Jewish Christians observed the Sabbath, cir- 
cumcision, passover, etc. , for a long time. In some churches 
where the Jewish element predominated, the Gentiles may 
have also kept the Sabbath, but all parties kept Sunday at 
the same time. These are the facts about Sabbath-keeping 
in the early church as proved above. 

6. Seventh-Day Adventists quote so-called "eminent 
historians" to prove their assertions. With these authors 
they deceive the people and deceive themselves. They quote 
them as "reliable historians," "high authorities," "emi- 
nent divines," "all friends of Sunday," etc. But who are 
they? Look at Andrews' History of the Sabbath, their 
standard work. All others relating to the history of the 
Sabbath are only a re-hash of this. It is served up on all 
occasions and his authors are quoted over and over by writers 
and preachers. But the great bulk of his quotations are 
from such men as Heylyn, Domville, Morer, Cox, Brere- 


Wood, White, etc., Episcopal clergymen of England who 
were bitter opposers of Sunday sacredness. 

1. Brerewood, in the seventeenth century, was only a 
college professor, not of note enough to be even named in 
any cyclopedia I have seen, and 1 have consulted many. He 
was a fiery erratic, and argued that the Sabbath law was 
given only to the master. See The Sabbath by Giltillin, 
pages 122-123. 

2. Coleman, an American writer of our own times, 
scarcely mentioned in any cyclopedia. 

3. Dr. Cox, a Scottish anti-Sunday writer last century, 
not even named in any cyclopedia. See Gillfillin, page 168. 
Yet Andrews quotes him twenty-two times^ long quotations, 
as a friend of Sunday ! He might as well quote one of his 
own party. In proof of this read the following from Dr. 
Lewis, Seventh-Day Baptist, in his "History of Sabbath 
and Sunday": ''A pastor of the Mill Yard Seventh-Day 
Baptist Church in London, Robert Cornthwaite, published 
five works upon the Sabbath question." Of the last book 
Lewij^ Says: " Robert Cox quotes largely from this work." 
Pages 337-339. Exactly; then Andrews calls this man a 
friend of Sunday ! 

4. Domville, another anti-Sunday writer of the nine- 
teenth century, not in any cyclopedia. He denies that there 
was any authority in the Bible for observing Sunday, even 
as a day for meetings. Gillfillin, page 143. Yet Andrews 
quotes him thirteen times as a standard Sunday authority ! 

5. Heylyn was the friend of the infamous Laud of 
England. In 1618 Charles I. of England issued a "Book 
of Sports" for Sunday, allowing of dancing, wrestling and 
various games on Sunday. See Gilfillin, page 85. Pious 
people opposed the declaration as a desecration of Sunday 
Laud, by the King's command, hired this Heylyn and Dr. 
White to write against Sunday sacredness, and in favor of 


the King's book. In four months a large volume was writ- 
ten, printed and delivered according to order, to prove what 
was wanted against Sunday. The Cyclopedia of Universal 
Knoweledge says of Heylyn: '* He was a very voluminous 
controversial writer, but his works are of no value now." 
From this man Andrews makes thirty-six quotations, many 
of them long, as his chief evidence on his main points ! 

6. White, the man associated with Heylyn, as the hire- 
ling of Laud in writing the above book, is quoted eleven 
times by Andrews as a reliable defender of Sunday ! He 
might as well quote Elder Waggoner as a defender of Sun- 

7. Morer is a writer of the eighteenth century, mentioned 
in no cyclopedia. He wrote to disprove the divine origin of 
Sunday observance. See GilfiUin, page 142. Of one of his 
statements, which happened to favor Sunday, Elder Wag- 
goner says: '' Dishonest as it manifestly is," etc. Replies 
to Elder Canright, page 146. From this " dishonest" man 
Elder Andrews makes no less than forty-seven quotations^ 
many of them long ! 

8. Jeremy Taylor, of the seventeenth century, the friend 
and chaplain of the villainous Laud, wrote against the divine 
authority of Sunday, and yet is quoted by Andrews as the 
friend of Sunday ! 

These are samples of his authors. Most of them were 
members of the Church of England, and that, too, during 
the worst period of that church; a church which permits the 
widest range in theological opinions, such as Unitarianism, 
Universalism, future probation, annihilation, rationalism, 
high church, low church, etc. How much then does it sig- 
nify as to the soundness of one's opinion to state that he is 
a minister of that church ? 

Take from the historical part of Andrews' history his 
quotations and arguments from the above authors and you 


would hardly have a skeleton left. And even quotations 
from these are one-sided. Waggoner, Smith, Butler, and 
all the lesser lights among Seventh-Day Adventists who have 
come after Andrews simply use these quotations which he 
gathered for them. But they might as well quote Inger- 
soll and Tom Paine as "friends of the Bible" as to quote 
these men as ' ' friends of the Sunday Sabbath. " Each of 
them wrote on purpose to refute the claims of Sunday as a 
Sabbath of divine authority. Thousands of readers ignorant 
of history are misled, as I was once, by these quotations 
used by the Adventists. If they had the truth they would 
not be compelled to rely upon such authors. 


Seventh-Day Adventists affirm that keeping Sunday was 
adopted from the pagan Romans by the Catholics and from 
the Catholics by the Protestants. This idea they industri- 
ously teach everywhere. They say that these pagans kept 
Sunday in worship of the sun. See Andrews' History of 
the Sabbath, pages 258-264. Such statements are utterly 
false. Each day of the week was named after some god 
und, in a certain sense, was devoted to the worship of that 
god, as Monday to the moon, Saturday to Saturn, Sunday 
to the sun, etc. But did they cease work on these days ? 
No; if they had they would have kept every day in the 
week. Did they observe Sunday by ceasing to work ? No, 
indeed. No such thing was taught or practiced by the 
Romans. They had no weekly rest day. 

Prof. A. Rauschinbusch of Rochester Theological Seminary 
quotes Lotz thus: " ' It is a vain thing to attempt to prove 
that the Greeks and Romans had anything resembling the 
Sabbath. Such opinion is refuted even by this, that the 
Roman writers ridicule the Sabbath as something peculiar 
to the Jews. ' In proof he cites many passages from the 


Roman poets, and one from Tacitus. Seneca also con- 
demned the Sabbath observance of the Jews as a waste of 
time by which a seventh part of life was lost." Satm^day or 
Sunday? Page 83. Herzog says; ''No special religious 
celebration of any one day of the week can be pointed out 
in any one of the pagan religions." Article Sabbath. This 
fact is accidentally confessed by Elder Waggoner. Of Con- 
stantine's law, A. D. 321, he says: ''Though the venerable 
day of the sun had long — very long — been venerated by 
them and their heathen ancestors, the idea of rest from 
worldly labor in its worship was entirely new.^^ Replies to 
Elder Canright, page 130. Mark this confession for it gives 
up the main pillar of their argument in their effort to prove 
that Sunday-keeping was taken from the pagans. The 
pagans never Icejpt Sunday. It was a common work day 
like other days of the week. The idea and the custom of 
keeping Sunday as a day of rest from work originated with 
the Christians, not with pagans. So much for that false- 
hood. Again: Saturday was sacred to Saturn as Sunday 
was to the sun. So Adventists are keeping a heathen day 
Ahe same as Sunday-keepers are ! 


It has been common for Sabbatarians to point to the law 
of Constant! ne as a chief factor in changing the Sabbath to 
Sunday. There never w^as any truth in the charge; but 
Elder Waggoner now owns it all up and confesses that it 
had nothing whatever to do in changing the Sabbath. "Con- 
stantine, in his decrees, said not one word either for or 
against keeping the Sabbath of the Bible." "It is safe to 
affirm that there was nothing done in the time of Constan- 
tine, either by himself or any other, that has the least ap- 
pearance of changing the Sabbath." RepUes to Elder Can« 
right, page 150. That is the truth and a good confession, 


tihough it contradicts all that they have said heretofore. "Novf 
let them revise their old books to harmonize with this truth 
and they will be much smaller. 


A. D. 321, Constantine, the first Christian emperor of 
Rome, issued the following edict: 

''Let all the judges and town people, and the occupation 
of all trades, rest on the venerable day of the sUn, but let 
those who are situated in the country, freely and at full 
Hberty, attend to the business of agiiculture; because it often 
happens that no other day is so fit for sowing corn and 
planting vines; lest, the critical moment being let slip, 
men should lose the commodities granted by Heaven." 

The simple facts about this law are these: Christians from 
the days of the apostles had kept the first day of the week; 
but there was no civil law to protect or aid them in it. By 
this time they had become very numerous in the empire and 
their influence was rapidly gaining. The old pagan religion 
was falling before them. Constantine, to say the least, was 
favorable to Ch ristianity . His parents were Christians. He 
was shrewd enough to see that it was for his interest to favor 
this new and rising religion. Hence, as soon as he publicly 
professed Christianity, he issued several edicts favoring it 
in various wa3'S, this one concerning Sunday among the rest. 
The Schafi-Herzog Encyclopedia well says: ''He was no 
doubt convinced of the superior claims of Christianity as 
the rising religion; but his conversion was a change of policy, 
rather than of moral character. * * * He knew Chris- 
tianity well, but only as a power in the Roman Empire and 
he protected it as a wise and far-seeing statesman. * * * 
His first edict concerning the Christians (Rome, 312) is lost. 
By the second (Milan, 313) he granted them, not only 
free rehgious worship and the recognition of the state, but 


aiso reparation of previously incurred losses. * * * A 
series of edicts of 315, 316, 319, 321, and 323, completed 
the revolution. Christians weve admitted to the offices of the 
state. * * * An edict of 321 ordered Sunday to be 
celebrated by cessation of all work in public. " 

It will be seen that this edict was only one of seven issued 
to favor Christians. 1. It was not made to please or favor 
the pagans, for, as seen above, they did not keep Sunday. 
2. As we have proved, the Christians did all keep Sunday, 
hence this law would favor and please them. 3. The edict 
was not addressed to Christians for they needed no such law 
for themselves as they kept that day voluntarily. 4. It was 
\not worded in Christian terms, "Lord's Day," as it was ad- 
dressed to pagans. 5 It W' as couched in pagan terms, ' 'day 
of the sun," that pagans might understand it and that it 
might offend them less. This law, then, made no change in 
the observance of Sunday on the part of Christians; but it 
did secure to that day a better observance by requiring 
everyone, pagans and all, to cease work that day. But it is 
said that this law of Constantine, A. D. 321, was the first 
law ever made prohibiting work on Sunday. Very true, but 
why? Because none but Christians believed it wrong to 
work that day; and up to that date Christians had no power 
to make laws and hence could not have made a law for 
keeping Sunday if they had desired to. It is noticeable that 
the first emperor who favored Christianity made, among 
other laws favoring Christians, a civil law prohibiting work 
on Sunday. 

That this law was made at the request of Christians is 
now admitted by Adventists. Thus Elder A. T. Jones in 
the Battle Creek Journal, December 11, 1888, says: ''It is 
demonstrated that the first Sunday law that ever was enacted 
was at the request of the church; it was in behalf of 
the church, and it was expressly to help the church." 


Exactly, and this proves that the church kept Sunday 
before that law was made. It is an absurdity to say 
that the pagans had always kept Sunday and yet had 
never made a law concerning it. As Adventists all agree, 
the first Sunday law was made to favor Christians. This 
shows that Sunday observance was then regarded as an 
t3ssential part of Christianity. Of this law Mosheim says: 
*'The first day of the week, which was the ordinary and 
stated time for the public assemblies of the Christians, 
was, in consequence of a peculiar law enacted by Constan- 
tine, observed with greater solemnity than it had foraierly 
been." Mosheim, century 4, part 2, chapter 4, sec- 
tion 5. 

This law, addressed to pagans who had alwaj^s worked on 
Sunday, required the cessation of business on that day and 
so secured to Christians a better observance of Sunday than 
before. The ecclesiastical historian, Sozomen, writing of 
Constantine, says: "He also enjoined the observance of the 
day termed the Lord's Day. * * * He honored the 
Lord's Day because on it Christ rose from the dead." 
Eccl. Hist. , page 22. It was, then, in behalf of Sunday as 
a Christian day, not as a pagan festival, that this law was 


I pressed the Adventists to name the time and place when 
and where the Sabbath was changed by the pope, and to 
name the pope and the facts about such a change if it ever 
occurred. Nettled by this. Elder Waggoner undertook the 
Herculean task. A worse sample of assumption and perver- 
sion of facts it would be hard to find. At last he settles on 
the council of Laodicea, A. D. 364, as the place and time 
when and where the Sabbath was changed. The 29th canon 


of that council reads thus: * 'Christians ought not to Juda* 
ize and to rest in the Sabbath, but to work in that day; but 
preferring the Lord's Day, should rest, if possible, as Chris- 
tians. Wherefore if they shall be found to Judaize, let them 
be accursed from Christ." On this the Elder says: "Now, 
if any one can imagine what would be changing the Sab- 
bath, if this is not, 1 would be extremely happy to learn 
what it could be." "Now I claim that I have completely 
met his demand; I have shown the time, the place, and the 
power that changed the Sabbath." Replies to Canright, 
pages 141, 151. He claims that this was "a Catholic 
council" and that "historians early and late have made 
much mention" of this council. Now let us examine his 

1. If the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the pope 
right here, as he affirms, then certainly it was not changed 
before nor after nor at any other place. So if this fails 
their whole cause is lost. Let the reader mark the im- 
portance of this fact. 

2. He admits what every scholar knows, that till after the 
time of Constantine the bishop of Rome had no ' 'authority 
whatever above the other bishops" and so could not have 
changed the Sabbath before that time. He says: "It was 
Constantine himself that laid the foundation of the papacy. " 
Replies to Elder Canright, page 148. Surely the papacy 
did not exist before its foundation was laid. 

3. He admits,, as above, that Constantine did nothing to 
change the Sabbath. 

4. But we have abundantly proved in precedings pages 
that all Christians long before this date were unanimous in 
observing the Lord's Day. This one simple fact proves the 
utter absurdity of the claim that it was changed at Laodicea, 
A. D. 364, or by the papacy at any time. 

5. In the year 324, or just 40 years before the council of 


Laodicea, Eusebius, bishop of Cesarea, Palestine, wrote his 
celebrated history of Christianity. He had every possible op- 
portunity to know what Christians did throughout the world. 
He says: "And all things whatsoever that it was the duty 
to do on the Sabbath, these Ave have transferred to the 
Lord's Day as more honorable than the Jewish Sabbath." 
Quoted in Sabbath Manual, page 127. 

That is the way the Sabbath and Sunday stood in the 
church 40 years before Laodicea. They did not keep the 
Sabbath, but did keep the Lord's Day, had transferred all 
things to it. How much truth, then, can there be in the 
position that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday by the 
pope 40 years later ? Shame on such brazen attempts to 
pervert the truth. But let us look at the real facts about the 
council at Laodicea. Seventh-Day Adventists claim two 
things, viz: that the Sabbath was changed by the Roman 
church, and that it was done by the authority of the pope. 
Then they select Laodicea as the place and time. But, 

1. Laodicea is not Rome. It is situated in Asia Minor 
over 1,000 miles east of Rome. It was in Asia not in 
Europe. It was an Eastern, not a Western town, an oriental, 
not a Latin city. 

2. It was a Greek, not a Roman city. 

3. The pope of Rome did not attend this council at Lao- 
dicea, A. D. 364. Does Waggoner claim that he did ? No, 
he does not dare to. 

4. The pope did not attend, nor did he send a legate or 
a delegate or any one to represent him. In fact, neither the 
Roman Catholic church nor the pope had anything to do 
with the council in any way, shape or manner. It was held 
without even their knowledge or consent. 

5. At this early date, A. D. 364, the popes, or rather 
bishops of Rome, had no authority over other bishops. It 
was 200 years later before they were invested with author- 


ity over "Western churches. Even then their authority was 
stoutly resisted for centuries in the East where this council 
was held. See Bower's History of the Popes, or any church 
history. Speaking of Sylvester, who was bishop of Rome 
A. D. 314 to 336, only 28 years before this council at Lao- 
dicea, Elder Waggoner says: "The bishop of Rome had 
not then yet attained to any authority whatever above the 
other bishops." Replies to Canright, page 143. This is 
true. Did they in the next twenty-eight years gain author- 
ity to change the keeping of the Sabbath from one day to 
another throughout the whole world? Preposterous! 

6. Liberius ^^as bishop of Rome at the time of this coun- 
cil at Laodicea. He was degraded from his office, banished, 
and treated with the utmost contempt. Bowers says that in 
order to end his exile, Liberius ' 'wrote in a most submis- 
sive and cringing style to the eastern bishops. " History of 
the Popes, Vol. I, page 64. And this was the pope who 
changed the Sabbath at a council of these same eastern 
bishops, 1,000 miles away, which he never attended ! 

7. The council of Laodicea was only a local council, a 
small, unimportant affair and not a general council at all. 
Elder Waggoner magnifies it into a great "Catholic [general] 
council," a claim which is utterly false. The general coun- 
cils are: 1. That at Nice, A. D. 325. 2. That at Constan^ 
tinople, A. D. 381. 3. That at Ephesus, A. D. 431, etc. See 
the list in Johnson's Cyclopedia, or any history. Bower in 
his extensive work, the "History of the Popes," gives an 
account of all the general councils, the important local coun- 
cils, and all with which Rome or the popes had to do, but 
does not even mention this one at Laodicea. He mentions 
many councils held about that time, but not this one. He 
says: "Several other councils were held from the year 363 
to 368, of which we have no particular account." Vol. I, 
page 79. I have searched through a number of cyclopedias 


and church histories and can find no mention at all of the 
council at Laodicea, in most of them, and only a few lines in 
any. Rev. W. Armstrong, a scholar of Canton, Pa., ssljs: 
"This council is not even mentioned by Mosheim, Milner, 
Ruter, Reeves, Socrates, Sozomen, nor by four other histor- 
ians on my table." McClintock and Strong's Cyclopedia 
says: ''Thirty-two bishops were present from different 
provinces in Asia." All bishops of the Eastern church, not 
one from the Roman church! And yet this was the time and 
place when and where the Roman church and the pope 
changed the Sabbath ! 

8. Now think of it: this little local council of thirty-two 
bishops revolutionizes the whole world on the keeping of 
the Sabbath ! 

9. The fact is that this council simply regulated in this 
locality an already long established institution, the Lord's 
Day, just the same as council after council did afterwards. 
If this changed the Sabbath to Sunday, then it has been 
changed a hundred times since ! Sabbatarians point to these 
different regulations as so many acts in changing the Sab- 
bath, when they have not the remotest relation to such a 
thing any more than have the resolutions with regard to 
keeping Sunday which are passed year by year now in all 
our religious assemblies. Elder Waggoner makes this truth- 
ful statement: "The decrees of councils have not as a gen- 
eral thing been arbitrary laws telling what 7nust he, so much 
so they have been the formulation of the opinions and prac 
tices largely prevalent at the time. * * * Infallibility 
had been attributed to the pope hundreds of years before it 
became a dogma of the church." Fathers of the Catholic 
Church, page 333, Exactly, and just so the Lord's Day 
had been kept by the church hundreds of years before the 
council of Laodicea mentioned it. 

10. The church of Laodicea where this council was held 


was raised up by Paul himself, Col. 4:13, 16; 1 Tim. 6; 
close of the epistle. It was one of the seven churches to 
which John wrote. Rev. 3:14. Hence it is certain it was 
well instructed and grounded in the doctrines of the apostles. 
Between Paul and this council, that is A. D. 2Y0, Anatolius 
was bishop of Loadicea. Rewrote: " Our regard for the 
Lord's resurrection, which took place on the Lord's Day, 
will lead us to celebrate it on the same principle." Canon 
16. Here we have that church keeping Sunday one hundred 
years before this council. 

11. Finally, if the council of Laodicea changed the Sab- 
bath, as Adventists say, then it was changed by the Greek 
church instead of the Roman church; changed by the east- 
ern churches over which Rome had no authority; changed 
before the papacy was established, before the pope had any 
authority over the east, by a small local council which neither 
the pope nor any of his servants attended. The absurdity 
of this claim is manifest without further argument. 

For many years I accepted these false statements of Sab- 
batarian writers as undoubted truths, as all their converts 
do. I had no means of knowing better. I preached strongly 
what I read in their books and led hundreds still more 
ignorant than myself to believe it. Gradually the truth 
dawned upon me that I was being misled, but it then took 
me years to learn the real facts in the case and free myself 
from the superstition which bound me. Now I have investi- 
gated the matter till I J^m fully satisfied for myself that, to 
sustain their false theories, they have done great violence to 
the plainest facts of history. The assertion that the pope 
changed the Sabbath is a fair sample of the rest. 



The Sabbath is not mentioned by name in the book of 
Genesis, nor till the time of Moses. Gen. 2:1-3 states that 
God finished creation in six days and rested on the seventh 
day; and that he blessed and sanctified the seventh day 
'' because that in it he had rested." On this we remark: 1. 
The day was not holy in itself. 2. God's rest upon that 
day did not make it holy. 3. God sanctified or made holy 
the seventh day because that in it he had rested. His rest 
was over and passed before he blessed the day. 4. As to 
just when God blessed the day the record does not clearly 
state. Some contend that he sanctified the day then and 
there in Eden. Others argue that this was not done till th« 
exodus. Plausible arguments are used on both sides; but 
the simple fact that the most godly and learned men have 
always disagreed about the institutition of the Sabbath in 
Eden should teach us caution how we build a theory upon a 
disputed text so meager in statement and so far away in time. 
In all fairness it must be owned that the definite time when 
the Sabbath was sanctified can not certainly be determined 
from this text. 

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible truthfully says: "It is 
in Ex. 16:23-29 that we find the first incontrovertible insti- 
tution of the day." Art. Sabbath. Of the argument on 
Gen. 2:1-3 for the institution of the Sabbath in Eden it says: 
"The whole argument is very precarious." There is no 



command in Gen. 2 to keep the Sabbath. We must look 
elsewhere for that. The sanctification of the seventh day 
there mentioned is claimed by some to have been by antici- 
pation. As Moses wrote his books after he came to Sinai, 
after the Sabbath had been given in the wilderness, he here 
mentions one reason why God thus gave them the seventh 
day, viz: because God himself had set the example at crea- 
tion; had worked six days and rested the seventh. Such 
use of language is common. We say Gen. Grant was born 
at such a time. We do not mean that he was a general then, 
but we mention it by anticipation, using a title which he 
afterwards bore. So in Gen. 3:20, ''Adam called his wife's 
name Eve, because she was the mother of all livino^." Here 
is a future fact stated as though it had already occurred. So 
1 Sam, 4:1, the Jews "pitched beside Eben-ezer. " But the 
place was not named Eben-ezer till years after. 1 Sam. 
7:12. "Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor." Luke 
6:16. Here a future fact with regard to Judas is mentioned 
when he is first spoken of, though the act of betrayal did 
not take place till years later. Just so when the seventh 
day is first mentioned its sanctification is referred to, though 
it did not occur till afterwards. We must admit that this 
may have been so. 

Ex. 20:8 says: " Remember the Sabbath day," etc. 
Sabbatarians claim that this shows that the Sabbath existed 
from creation. It does not prove it, because the Sabbath 
had been given some weeks before the decalogue was given. 
So this may refer back only to Ex. 16, when the Sabbath is 
first named. Or, which is evidently the real truth about it, 
it may refer to keeping the Sabbath as it comes week by 
week. "Remember," don't forget, to keep the Sabbath 

Then it is now generally held by able Christian scholars 
that the days of creation were indefinite periods of time. 


There is mucli to sustain this idea. Sabbatarians themselves 
admit this. Thus Eev. A. H. Lewis, D. D , Seventh-Day 
Baptist, editor and author of several critical works on the 
Sabbath, says: " We apprehend that the creation week was 
infinitely longer than our week of seven days of twenty-four 
hours." Sabbath and Sunday, page 8. But this fact is 
fatal to his definite seventh-day theory; for if God's days 
were not twenty-four hour days like ours, then we do not 
and can not rest on the same definite day He did. Hence 
we can only use God's week as a model — six days work, the 
seventh rest. 

Sabbatarians think that the fourth commandment desig- 
nates the identical day on which God himself rested. But 
this is not as clear as they claim. " The seventh day is the 
Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20:10. That is, the 
rest day of the Lord; hence it must be the day on which he 
himself rested, they say. But this does not necessarily fol- 
low. The language simply claims that day as belonging to 
God. Take the day of the passover: " The fourteenth day 
of the first month is the passover of the Lord." Num. 28:16. 
Did the Lord keep the passover that day ? Hardly. Again: 
"These are the feasts of the Lord." Lev. 23:4. Did the 
Lord feast on those days? Surely not. The language 
simply claims those days as sacred to God and that is all 
that Ex. 20:10 claims for the seventh day. The revised 
version gives the idea clearly: " The seventh day is a Sab- 
bath unto the Lord thy God." 

Away back there in the dim past, where the events of an 
age are covered by one line in the Bible, it is impossible now 
to determine exactly how it all was. Those ages before 
Christ are compared to shadows. Col. 2:17, and to the light 
of the moon, Rev. 12:1, while the gospel is compared to the 
sun. Rev. 12:1. Is it not the safest for us to walk in the 
light of the sun instead of groping our way in the moonlight 


and shadows of the past ? But the main reliance of Sabbar- 
tarians is upon arguments drawn from those remote times 
of darkness, while in the New Testament they find little to 
support their theories, but much to explain away. 

There is no statement that any of the patriarchs kept the 
Sabbath or knew anything about it. Sabbatarians say the 
record is so brief that it was omitted. Their proof then is 
what was left out! 

Though the record from Adam to Moses covers a period of 
2500 years; though we appear to have a full account of the 
religious customs and worship of the patriarchs, such as 
Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, etc. ; though we are 
told about circumcision, the altar, the sacrifices, the priests, 
the tithe, the oath, marriage, feast days, etc. ; yet never a 
word is said about any one keeping the Sabbath. This does 
not prove positively that they did not keep it, but it does 
show a strong probability against it. This is the sum of 
what can be fairly said about the Sabbath in Genesis. 
When men go away back in Genesis to find their principal 
argument for the Sabbath, is it not going a long ways and 
finding little upon which to establish a Christian duty? 
Would it not be wiser and safer to build our faith upon the 
plain requirements of the New Testament ? 


Justin Martyr, who wrote only 44 years after the death 
of St. John, and who was well acquainted with the doctrine 
of the apostles, denied that the Sabbath originated at crea- 
tion. Thus after naming Adam, Abel, Enoch, Lot and 
Melchizedek, he says: "Moreover, all those righteous men 
already mentioned, though they kept no Sabbaths, were 
pleasing to God." Dialogue with Trypho, chapter 19. 

Irenaeus says: '' Abraham believed God without circuui' 
cision and the Sabbath." Adv. Hceres, lib. 4, c. 30. 


Tertullian, A. D. 200, said: *'Let them show me that 
Adam Sabbatized, or that Abel in presenting his holy offer- 
ing to God pleased him by Sabbath obsei-vance, or that 
Enoch who was translated was an observer of the Sabbath." 
Against the Jews, section 4. 

Eusebius, A. D. 324, the father of church history, says: 
*'They (the patriarchs) did not, therefore, regard circum- 
cision, nor observe the Sabbath, nor do we." Eccl. Hist., 
book 1, chapter 4. 

From this it will be seen that the early church did not 
believe that the Sabbath originated at creation. The same 
doctrine has been maintained by such eminent men as Paley, 
Hessey, Bishop Bramhall, etc. Paley says: "Now, in my 
opinion, the transactions in the wilderness above recited 
were the first actual institution of the Sabbath." Quoted 
in Watson's Institutes, Vol. II, page 515. The great John 
Milton says: "Whether its institution was ever made 
known to Adam, or whether any commandment relative to 
its observance was given previous to the delivery of the law 
on Mt. Sinai, much less whether any such was given before 
the fall of man, can not be ascertained." A Treatise on 
Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, page 299. 

John Bunyan says: " Now as to the imposing of the 
seventh day Sabbath upon men from Adam to Moses, of 
that we find nothing in holy writ, either from precept or 
example." Complete Works, page 892. So many of the 
best minds have not been able to find clear proof that the 
Sabbath was kept before Moses. Others, as Clarke, Barnes, 
Scott, Lange, etc. , think that it was. We best leave it as 
an unsettled question. 

Granting that the Sabbath was given to Adam in Eden, 
it does not follow that all men now must keep it. Look at 
what Adam was to do: 1st. Adam was only allowed to eat 
the fruit of trees and plants. Gen. 1: 29. The first permis- 


sion to eat flesh was given to Noah. Gen. 9: 3. 2d. Adam 
was to tend garden. Gen. 2: 15. 3d. He was forbidden 
the tree of knowledge. Gen. 2: 17. 4th. He was given 
access to the tree of life. Gen. 2: 16. 5th. Adam was 
naked. Gen. 2: 25. All this was in Eden before the fall. 
Must all men now eat and work and dress and do just as 
Adam did in Eden ? No one believes that. Then it would 
not follow that we must keep the seventh day even if Adam 
did. This simple fact demolishes the most confident argu- 
ment of Sabbatarians. 


The first mention of Sabbath observance is in Ex. 16. 
Many eminent scholars hold that God here changed the day 
of rest from the original seventh to the sixth day of the crea- 
tion week. Others bold that the Jews, during their long 
slavery in Egypt, had lost the Sabbath and that it was here 
renewed; while others hold that it was here given for the first 
time. Whichever position is correct, it is clear that the 
keeping of the Sabbath was a new thing to the Jews. A few 
facts are plain. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt marked 
a new era in the history of the church and of Israel. This 
is kept prominent all through the Bible. Here God gave 
them a new year and a new beginning of months. "This 
month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall 
be the first month of the year to you." Ex. 12: 2. Hence 
it is very probable that he might have given them a new 
Sabbath day or one for the first time. The account of their 
first keeping the Sabbath shows plainly that they were not 
accustomed to it before. 

Dr. H. C. Benson, the eminent M. E. editor, scholar and 
author, says of Ex. 16: "It is so explicit that we are not 
left in doubt as to the fact that the Sabbath, as observed in 
the wilderness of sin, had not been a day hollowed by the 


Lord previous to that time." Quoted and approved by Dr. 
Potts and Bishop Harris in The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, 
page 15. 

John Milton over 200 years ago said: ''That the Israelites 
had not so much as heard of the Sabbath before this time, 
seems to be confirmed by several passages of the prophets.'' 
Treatise on Christian Doctrine, Vol. I, book 2, chapter 7. 

John Bunyan also said: "The seventh day Sabbath, 
therefore, was not from paradise, nor from nature, nor from 
the fathers, but from the wilderness and from Sinai." Com 
plete Works, page 895. 

It was new to them. Read it: Moses said on Friday, 
' 'To-morrow is a solemn rest, a holy Sabbath unto the Lord. " 
(R. V.) The last verse gives the conclusion of the whole 
matter. "So the people rested on the seventh day." That 
is, thus and for this reason the people here began resting on 
the seventh day. There is no sense in the language if this is 
not the meaning. Several scriptures harmonize well with this 
idea. Thus, Neh. 9: 13-14. "Thou camest down also upon 
Mount Sinai, -5^ * * and madest known unto them thy 
holy Sabbath." This implies that it was not known before. 
In harmony with this, Ezek. 20: 10-12 says: "Wherefore I 
caused them to go forth out of the land of Egypt, and 
brought them into the wilderness." "Moreover also I gave 
them my Sabbaths, to be a sign between me and them." 
When did God give them the Sabbath ? When he brought 
them out of Egypt. Where did he give it to them ? In the 
wilderness. What for? For a sign between himself and them. 

It does not say that God restored the Sabbath, but that 
he gave them the Sabbath. "I gave them my Sabbaths" 
implies the act of committing it to them, showing that they 
did not have it before. Surely all these facts are plainly 
stated. They show that the keeping of this day was a new 
thing to them and only for them. Deut. 5: 15, states that 


the Sabbath is to be kept as a memorial of Egypt. * 'Re- 
member that thou wast a servant in the land of Egypt, and 
that the Lord thy God brought thee out thence; * * * 
therefore, the Lord thy God commanded thee to keep the 
Sabbath day." This indicates that the Sabbath was a Jew- 
ish institution. One reason given why they should keep it 
was because they had been delivered out of Egypt. Of 
course they would not keep it till the reason existed for keep- 
ing it. The laws regulating how it should be kept show 
that it was a local institution adapted only to the Jewish 
worship and to that warm climate. 1. No fires must be 
built on the Sabbath. Ex. 35: 3. 2. They must neither 
bake nor boil that day. Ex. 16: 23. 3. They must not 
go out of the house. Ex. 16: 29. 4. Their priests must 
offer two lambs that day. Num. 28: 9. 5. They must com- 
pel all among them, living in their land, to keep it. Ex. 20: 
10. 6. They must stone all who broke it. Ex. 31: 14. 

7. It must be kept from sunset to sunset. Lev. 23: 32. 

8. Their cattle must rest. Ex. 20: 10. No meetings were 
appointed for that day. It was to be wholly a day of rest. 

Seventh-Day Adventists observe none of these things. In- 
deed, it would be impossible for them to do most of them. 
They would freeze without fires and suffer without warm 
food. They go many miles on the Sabbath and drive their 
teams; they offer no lambs; they can compel no one 
to keep it; nor do they stone those who break it. 
In the extreme north and in traveling around the 
earth they do not go by sunset time, for they cannot. Their 
Sabbath-keeping is no more like that of the Old Testament, 
such as the law required, than darkness is like light. It 
shows the folly of their effort to keep an obsolete Jewish 
day. Nowhere are Gentiles required to keep the Sabbath 
except such as dwell among the Jews. They were also re- 
quired to keep the other feast days. Lev. 16: 29. All 


throngh the Old Testament the Gentiles are denounced over 
and over for all other sins, but not once for breaking the 
Sabbath, though none of them kept it. The reason for this 
must be that it was not binding upon them. John Bunyan 
says: ''We read not that God gave it to any but to the 
seed of Jacob." Complete Works, page 895. 



Sabbatarians strongly object to our calling the seventh-day 
the '^Jewish Sabbath." They ask, "Where does the Bible 
call it the Jewish Sabbath ? It is 'the sabbath of the Lord 
thy God. ' " This simple argument has great force with many. 
But I am satisfied it is perfectly proper to designate the 
seventh day as the Jewish Sabbath. Seventh-day brethren 
are constantly talking and writing about "the ceremonial 
law" and "the moral law," nor could they properly express 
their ideas of the "two laws" without using these terms. 
But neither of them is once used in all the Bible. How is 
this ? Will they admit that their idea is unscriptural be- 
cause these exact words are not used in the Bible ? No. 
They freely use the terms "Jewish festivals," "Jewish sab- 
baths," "annual sabbaths," "sabbaths of the Hebrews," 
etc. See "History of the Sabbath," pages 82, 83, 84, etc. 
Yet not one of these terms is found in the Bible, though 
they cannot get along without them. It would be amusing 
to confine a Sabbatarian strictly to the Bible language and 
then hear him attempt to preach on the two laws and the 
difierent sabbaths. "Those who live in glass houses should 
not throw stones." 

1. "Sabbath" is purely a Hebrew word never found till 
the time of Moses. Ex. 16: 23. 

2. The word Sabbath is never used in the Bible except in 
connection with some Jewish holy time. 


3. There is no record that the Sabbath was ever kept eill 
the Jews kept it. Ex. 10, 

4. The Sabbath was given to the Jews. ''I gave them 
my Sabbaths." Ez. 20: 12. If God gave it to the Jews, 
was it not their Sabbath; was it not the Jewish Sabbath? 
I give Fred a knife. Is it not Fred's knife ? 

5. Notice how plain the record is that God gave tne Sab- 
bath to the Jews, but to no others. "The Lord hath given 
you the Sabbath." Ex. 16: 29. "Speak unto the children 
of Israel^ saying. Verily, my Sabbaths ye shall keep." 
Ex. 31: 13. Who was told to keep the Sabbath? The 
children of Israel, the Jews. ' 'It is a sign between me and 
the child/ren of Israel ^^'' the Jews. Verse 17. 

6. God himself calls the Sabbath "her Sabbaths." Hosea 
2: 11. "I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast 
days, her new moons, and her Sabbaths, and all her solemn 
feasts." Isn't it the Jewish Sabbath, then ? 

7. The Sabbath was never given to any other nation. 

8. "The children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath 
throughout their generation." Ex. 31:16. To whom was 
it confined % To the generation of the Jews. 

9. "It is a sign between me and the children of Israel.'^^ 
Ex. 31: 17. It was theirs exclusively, Jewish. 

10. The Sabbath is classed right in with the other Jew- 
ish holy days and sacrifices. See Lev. 23: 1-44:; Nums: 28: 
2, 16; 1 Chron. 23: 29-31; 2 Chro. 2: 4; 8: 13, etc. 

11. It was abolished with them. Col. 2: 14-17. 

12. The Jews comprise nearly all those who keep the 
seventh day; hence "Jewish Sabbath" is a natural and intel- 
ligent designation for that day. 

13. Christians almost unanimously keep the first day in 
distinction from the Jews who comprise nearly all those who 
keep the seventh day. Hence the Jewish Sabbath is intellir 
gent and proper again. 


14. The few Christians who keep a different day from the 
great body of the church keep the Sabbath which the Jews 
keep. Hence, again, it is significant and proper to desig- 
nate them as those who keep the Jev.ish Sabbath. 

15. But Sabbatarians say that the seventh day is called 
''the Sabbath of the Lord thy God." Ex. 20: 10, and ''my 
holy day," Isa. 58: 10, therefore it is not proper to call it 
"the Jewish Sabbath." 

Answer: Every holy season, place, person, or article was 
called the Lord's as "the Lord's passover." Ex. 12: 11. 
Yet we read, "The passover, a feast of the Jews." John 6: 
4 So it is "the Sabbath of the Lord" in one place and 
"her Sabbaths" in another. Hosea 2: 11. Hence it is cor- 
rect and scriptural to call the seventh day "the Jewish Sab- 


Here Sabbatarians find three expressions from which they 
irgue that the Sabbath can never end. 1. "Throughout 
their generations." 2. "Perpetual." 3. "Forever." Thus: 
"Wherefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to 
observe the Sabbath throughout their generations, for a per- 
petual covenant. It is a sign between me and the children 
of Israel for ever." They ask, when y^\^ perjpetual and/br 
ever end ? They show that the generation of the Jews still 
continues; hence the Sabbath is still to be kept. 

But this argument would also perpetuate all the Levitical 
law, circumcision, incense, passover, priesthood, etc. Thus 
the passover: "ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord through- 
out your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance 
forever." Ex. 12:14. It must be ^Q^t "' throughout their 
generations'^ and '^forever'^^ just like the Sabbath. So of the 
offering of incense. '''' K perpetual incense before the Lord 
throughout your generations^ Ex. 30: 8. Now if the 
Adventist argument for the Sabbath based on the terms 


"perpetual," * 'forever," and * 'throughout your genera^ 
tions," is good, then they ought to keep the passover and 
offer incense! This is a fair sample of the weakness of Sab- 
batarian arguments. The same argument will prove the 
perpetuity of burnt offerings, Ex. 29: 42; atonement, Ex. 
30: 10; washing of hands and feet; Ex. 30: 21; first fruits, 
Lev. 23: 14; meat offering. Lev. 6: 18; oil for lamps, Lev. 
24: 3; fringes, Num. 15: 38; pentecost. Lev. 23: 21; feast of 
tabernacles. Lev. 23: 41. See also Ex. 40: 15; Lev. 3: IT; 
7: 36; Num. 10: 8. 

The application of these terms to the keeping of the Sab- 
bath is proof that it was to cease. Why ? Because in every 
case where these terms are applied to the observance of any 
ordinance that ordinance has ceased. Adventists themselves 
will agree to this in everything except the Sabbath. None 
of these terms are ever applied to moral laws or duties. 
Where do you read, "you shall not kill throughout your 
generations? " "It shall be a perpetual statute that you shall 
not steal?" "It shall be a statute forever that you shall 
have no other gods ?" This text, then, proves that the Sab- 
bath was to cease with the other Jewish ceremonies. 

*' Gentile Christians must become Jews, Israelites, and so 
come under obligation to keep the Sabbath, for the Sabbath 
was given to Israel forever throughout their generations." 
This is a favorite Advent argument for the law and Sabbath. 
But see its utter fallacy: Burnt offerings, incense, washing 
of hands and feet, fringes, priesthood, circumcision, pass- 
over, and all the Jewish law were also given to Israel to 
keep forever throughout their generations. See above. 
Hence the argument proves that we must keep all these as 
well as the Sabbath ! Do Adventists keep any of these : No. 

It is argued that the Sabbath must be of perpetual obliga- 
tion because it is associated in the decalogue with command- 
ments of that nature. But it is also associated time and 


AgaiD with the ceremonial rites, types and shadows which 
were peculiarly Jewish. Thus: '*Keep my Sabbaths and 
reverence my sanctury." Lev. 19: 30. ''The Seventh day 
it the Sabbath." Lev. 23: 3. "At even is the Lord's pass- 
over." Verse 5. *' The feast of unleavened bread." Verse 
6. In verse 38 the Sabbath is named with "gifts," "vows" 
and * 'offerings." In Lev. 24: 1-8 the Sabbath is named with 
the offerings of oil, bread, frankincense. In Num. 28: 9, 10, 
it is classed with the offerings of lambs, meat and drink 
offerings, burnt offerings, etc. In 1 Chron. 23: 29-31, the 
Sabbath is classed with meat offering, sacrifices, new moons, 
feasts, etc. This fact offsets all the argument drawn from 
its place in the decalogue. 


From Joshua to Job not a word is said indicating that 
the Sabbath was for any one but Jews; hence no argument 
can be drawn from this source to bind it upon the Gentile 


The Sabbath is not mentioned in Job, Psalms, Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, Daniel, and most of the minor prophets. 
Nothing is said about it by any of the prophets which can 
fairly be made to apply to Christians. Several texts are 
applied by Adventists to our times, but it is all assumption 
without proof. For instance, Isa. 56 is used to prove that 
the Gentile Christians should keep the Sabbath. It says: 
The stranger. Gentile, "that keepeth the Sabbath from pol- 
luting it, and taketh hold of my covenant; even them will I 
bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my 
house of prayer; their burnt offerings and their sacrifices 
shall be accepted upon mine altar. " Verses 6, 7. If this 
proves that Gentiles must keep the Sabbath, it also proves 
that they must offer burnt offerings and sacrifices upon 


God's altar in the temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem, for 
all those are mentioned as plainly as the Sabbath. Either, 
then, this applies to the Jewish age and to those Gentile 
proselytes who embraced Judaism and were circumcised, 
Ex. 12: 48, and observed all Jewish rites; or if it applies to 
the Christian age, then these terms "Sabbath," "altar," 
"sacrifice," "my house," "my holy mountain," must be 
taken figuratively, for Christians do not ofier sacrifices, nor 
have a literal altar, nor go to Jerusalem to worship in that 
house nor on that mountain. 

So Isa 58: 12-13 is boldly applied to our days and to the 
work of the Adventists in urging all to keep the Jewish 
Sabbath. But there is not a word in all the chapter even 
hinting such a thing. All this they assume without any 
proof and then apply the words to suit their purpose. I did 
that a hundred times while with them, just as the rest did. 
I know just how they do it. At last I lost all confidence in 
such a reckless way of handling the word of God. Then I 
had to quit using the most of their proof texts on the Sab- 
bath, this with others. Look at it. The whole chapter is 
addressed to the Jews, "the house of Jacob," verse 1, the 
"nation," verse 2, and so on. Often in the Jewish age God 
called them to reform their lax ways in keeping the Sabbath 
as well as in other things. This is one of those cases. Isa. 
66: 22, 23. In the new earth "it shall come to pass that 
from one new moon to another, and from one Sabbath to 
another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the 
Lord." This shows that the Sabbath will be kept in tho 
next world, hence it is perpetual and so should be kept now. 
But it says just the same of the new moons and places them 
first before the Sabbath. So if this text proves that we 
should keep the Sabbath it proves we should keep the new 
moons also. Do Adventists keep the new moons ? 

Ez. 22: 26. " Her priests have violated my law, and 


have profaned mine holy things; they nave put no difference 
between the holy and profane, neither have they showed 
difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid 
their eyes from my Sabbaths, and I am profaned among 
them." Thig text they also apply to their work now and to 
the ministers who oppose the Jewish Sabbath. But there 
is not a word in the whole chapter that even intimates that 
thfs applies away down here in the gospel and to Gentiles. 
But God himself applies it to the Jewish nation when they 
were overthrown by Babylon several hundred years before 
Christ. Read the whole chapter and compare it with Neh. 
13: 17, 18. See verses 2, 6, 18, 19, etc. *' Wilt thou judge 
the bloody city," etc. "Behold, the princes of Israel." 
" The house of Israel is to me become dross." " Therefore 
will I gather you into the midst of Jerusalem." The evi- 
dence is clear that it applies there, while no proof whatever 
^an be given to show that it belongs awa}" down here where 
Adventists apply it. I became fully convinced that it was 
by such groundless assumptions as these, by roundabout 
and far-fetched arguments, that the seventh-day theory is 
sustained. When you look for one plain, direct statement 
in all the Bible requiring Gentile Christians to keep the Sab- 
bath, it cannot be found. It has to be inferred from this, 
guessed from that, and concluded from the other; all infer- 
ence, nothing direct. So the Old Testament furnishes no 
evidence that Christians are to keep the Jewish Sabbath. 
If such proof is to be found, it must be in the New Testa- 
ment itself. 



With the opening of the gospel comes the most glorious 
period of the church's history. The Son of God himself 
stands before us clothed with all the authority of heaven. 
Matt. 28: 18. God says, ''Hear ye him." Matt. 17: 5. 
He came to introduce the gospel, "a new and living way," 
Heb. 10:20, "the new covenant," /'a better covenant" 
Heb. 8: 6, 8, which sets aside and supercedes the old, verse 
13. Compared to the Jewish age it is a "great light," Matt. 
4: 16, and the gospel church is represented as "a woman 
clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet. " Rev. 
12: 1. Much which before was dark, shadowy and mysteri- 
ous, is now light and plain. Rom. 16: 25, 26. 

A great and radical change in the mode of worshipping 
God is now introduced. Many institutions of the Old Tes- 
tament, which were once given in the most solemn manner; 
and by the authority of God himself, are no longer binding. 

Now, where shall we look to find the clearest light upon 
these old institutions ? Where shall we go to learn the real 
design of them all ? Where shall we turn to obtain the 
necessary rules for a Christian to live by ? Shall we go back 
to the moonlight of the Jewish law ? to the starlight of the 
patriarchal age ? or shall we come to the full sunlight of the 
gospel ? Evidently the New Testament furnishes the clearest, 
and only authoritative guide for the Christian. The Old 
Testament can be read and rightly understood only in the 



light of the New. But it is a fact that Sabbatarians have to 
go back to the Old Testament, even clear back to the uncer- 
tain institutions of the patriarchal age, as their clearest and 
most certam authority for the seventh day. The evidence 
from the New Testament only comes in as secondary and 
collateral. All their strongest arguments for the Sabbath 
are away back among the shadows of the Old Testament. 
Take these from them, and the very foundation has fallen 
out from their theory. I know that this is so, for I have 
gone over the ground a thousand times. I know just how 
a seventh day man feels, and where he rests his confidence. 
It is in Genesis and the law. Of the New Testament he is 
a little shy. But is there any other Christian duty which is 
plainly laid down only in the Old Testament ? I do not 
think of a single one, though in the past I tried hard and 
long to find it. On all other points the New Testament is 
clear and full. In it we have chapter after chapter, epistle 
after epistle, and book after book packed full of instruction 
on every Christian duty in every possible phase of it. The 
duty or the sin covered by each of the other nine command- 
ments is directly named many times over in the New Testa- 
ment. But the duty to keep the seventh day is not once 
mentioned. We arrange side by side — 


1. "Thou shalt have no other 1. "We preach unto you that 
Gods before me." Ex. 20: 3. ye should turn from these vanities 

unto the living God, which made 
heaven and earth and the sea." 
Acts 14: 15. 

2. "Thou Shalt not make unto 2. "Little children keep your 
thee any graven image; * * * selves from idols." John 5: 21. 
thou Shalt not bow down to them 

Dor serve them." Ex. 20: 4, 5. 

3. "Thou Shalt not take the 3. "But above all things, my 
name of the Lord thy God in brethren, swear not, neither by 
vain." Ex. 30: 7. heaven, neither by the earth, nei- 
ther by any other oath." James 


4. "Remember the Sabbath day 4. Thei:; is no command in all 
lo keep it holy." Ex. 20: 8. the New Testament to keep the 

the seventh day 

5. "Honor thy father and thy 6. "Children, obey your parents 
mother." Ex. 20: 12. in the Lord, for this is right." 

Eph. 6:1. 

6. "Thou Shalt not kill." Ex. 6. "Thou shalt not kill." Rom. 
20: 13. 18: 9. 

7. "Thou Shalt not commit adul- 7. "Neither fornicators nor 
tery." Ex. 20: 14. idolators nor adulterers * * * 

shall inherit the kingdom of God." 

20^'l5.'^^'''' '^^^^ ''''* ^^^^^'" ^^' ^ ^.'''""S^teai no more." Eph. 4: 28. 

9. "Thou shalt not bear false 9 "Lie not " Col 3-9 
witness." Ex. 20: 16. 

10. "Thou shalt not covet." Ex. 10. "Covetousness, let it not be 
20: 17. named among you." Eph. 5: 3. 

''The duty of men to worship the Lord God only as 
taught in the first commandment is found no less than fifty 
times in the New Testament. Idolatry, which is the second 
commandment, is condemned twelve times. Profanity, the 
third commandment, is plainly condemned four times. 
Honor thy father and mother, which is the fifth command- 
ment, is taught six times at least. Murder, which is the 
sixth prohibition, is found condemned six tunes. Adultery, 
the seventh, is condemned twelve times. Theft, the eighth, 
six times. False witness, the ninth, four times. Covetous- 
ness, the tenth, nine times. Now, with these facts before 
us, how can there be any danger that the law of God will be 
made void? Another remarkable fact is that the fourth 
commandment is not repeated in the New Testament, that no 
Christian was ever commanded to observe it, that no Chris- 
tian was ever condemned for Sabbath breaking. " Time and 
again, all through the New Testament long lists of sins em- 
bracing every possible shade of wickedness are given, but a 
disregard of the seventh day is never once included. Thus: 
Mark 7: 21, 22, thirteen sins; Rom. 1: 29-31, nineteen sins; 
Gal. 5: 19-21, seventeen sins; 2 Tim. 3: 1-4, eighteen sins, 
etc. How is this ? Would the Sabbatarians have left it so 1 


Strange to say, the duty to keep the seventh day is not 
once mentioned in the whole New Testament. There is not 
one single command from either Christ or any of his apostles 
to keep that day. It is not once said that it is wrong to 
work on the seventh day, or that God will bless any one for 
observing it. There is no promise for keeping it, no threat- 
ening for not keeping it. No one is ever reproved for work- 
ing on the seventh day, nor approved for observing it. If 
disregarding the seventh day is so great a crime as its advo- 
cates now claim, it is unaccountable that no warning against 
it should be given in all the New Testament, not even once. 
Is all this silence merely accidental ? So Sabbatarians have 
to believe; but the supposition is absurd. Evidently it was 
left out on purpose, the same as the pentecost, passover, new 
moons, sacrifices and the like. 

Paul, in all his fourteen epistles never even names the Sab- 
bath but once, and that only to show its abolition. Col. 2; 
/ 6. Contrast this with Adventists' literature! 

The usual answer is that the Jews were already keeping 
the Sabbath, even too strictly, and therefore the Jewish 
Christians needed no instruction on this point. But this 
answer is not satisfactory. The Jews were just cs strictly 
opposed to false gods and images, and yet over and over 
Christians are warned against these things. Thus Paul says: 
^ '^Neither be ye idolaters," and "Flee from idolatry^ " 1 Cor. 
10: 7, 14. But where does it say, "Keep the seventh day?" 
or "Flee from Sabbath breaking ?" Besides, the great body 
of the Christian converts in the latter years of the gospel, 
were Gentiles, who had never kept the seventh day at alL 
Why should they not be instructed how to keep it ? Why 
should they be repeatedly warned against all other evil 
practices of their former lives, but never warned against 
breaking the Sabbath as they certainly had done before ? 
This was a point which I was never able to answer satisfac 


torily to myself while I kept the seventh day. The simple 
and manifest fact is, that it was not intended to bind the 
Jewish Sabbath upon the Christian church. Hence it was 
quitely allowed to drop out with other old covenant holy 
days and institutions. 

The arguments offered out of the New Testament for the 
observance of the seventh day are few and not hard to answer. 
Let us examine the main ones. 


With Sabbatarians this argument has more weight than 
all others from the New Testament. It always did with me. 
But now I am satisfied that, when fairly considered, there is 
nothing in it. Jesus was born and lived all his life under 
the law. Gal. 4: 4. That law was binding till his death. 
Col. 2: 14. Of course he ought to have kept every item of 
that law till the cross, just as he evidently did do. On this 
point Elder George I. Butler, Seventh-Day Adventist, sa3^s: 
"He lived under all the ceremonies and observances of the 
law of Moses, the same as did the other Jews. Thus he was 
'born under the law' and subject to it. All his life he was 
careful not to break any of its provisions, and he never per- 
mitted his disciples to do it to the day of his death." "The 
Law in Galatians," page 59. 

This is the plain truth in the case. But it shows the utter 
fallacy of arguing that we must keep the seventh day just 
because Jesus did. If we observe one institution of the old 
law just because Jesus did, then we should also keep all that 
he did; that is, live just as the Jews did under the law of 
Moses! For that is just what Jesus did. He instructed his 
disciples to offer gifts upon the altar, Matt. 5: 23, 24, 
sent a man to offer a gift. Matt. 8: 4, commanded his disci- 
ples to observe all that the scribes taught. Matt. 23: 2, 3, 
and was very particular to keep the passover just according 


to law only the day before his death. Luke 22: 7-15. But 
who thinks now of doing all these things because Jesus did! 
No one. Jesus was circumcised. Do Sabbatarians circum- 
cise ? No. Then why pick out the seventh day from all 
other holy days and rites and hold on to that while rejecting 
all the rest which he also observed ? It seems as though a 
candid man must admit that this argument for the Jewish 
Sabbath is not a success. If that day is binding upon Chris- 
tians it must be upon some other ground than because 
Jesus kept it while living as a Jew under the Jewish 

MARK 2: 27, 28. the sabbath made for man. 

The Sabbatarian use of this text is directly contrary to its 
plainest meaning. Jesus was not giving a history of the 
origin of the Sabbath, nor defending its sacredness against 
desecration, nor showing that it was made for all the race. 
No such thought is the subject of his remarks. He is not 
claiming the Jewish Sabbath as his day, as the day conse- 
crated to himself. It was not as God, the Creator, that he 
claimed to be its Lord; but it was as the Son of man, the 
representative of man, that he claimed to be lord over the 

Notice his premises and his conclusions: "The Sabbath 
was made for man, not man for the Sabbath: therefore the 
son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." He says that as 
the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, 
therefore he, a son of man, was Lord of it. Why was 
Jesus Lord of the Sabbath ? Because he was the Son of God 
and had made it ? Not at all; but because he was the Son 
of man, man for whom the Sabbath was made. It is as a 
man that he claims to be its Lord. And this he said to de- 
fend his disciples against the charge of breaking the Sab- 
bath. How did it apply % Why, the Sabbath was made for 


them and hence it was only their servant. They were 
superior to the Sabbath. Notice the cases he used to 
illustrate his statement. Matt. 12 : 3-12. 

1. David went to the priest and ate holy bread which 
the law forbade to any but priests. His needs were supe- 
rior to that ceremonial precept. 

2. " The priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and 
are blameless." Yerse 5. They would slay cattle all the 
Sabbath day. Their service was superior to the Sabbath. 

3. If a sheep fall into a pit on the Sabbath they would 
work hard to get him out. The preservation of animal 
life was superior to the Sabbath. I have seen Adventists 
work hard on the Sabbath in case of a fire to save even 
the goods, though the law says, " In it thou shalt not do 
any work." Would they dare violate the letter of any 
other commandment that way ? No. Then, surely, Jesus 
himself being judge, the observance of the strict letter of 
the Sabbath law is not a matter of the highest impor- 
tance. This is the lesson plainly taught here by Christ, the 
Lord of the Sabbath. It squarely condemns the rigid in- 
terpretation of the Sabbatarians who make the Sabbath 
more importa^nt than man himself for whom it was made. 

4. The Sabbath was made for man^ hence the necessi- 
ties of men are above the Sabbath law. So, then, this 
text, when fairly read, gives no support to the sacredness 
of the Jewish Sabbath under the gospel. 

MATT. 24 : 20. 
As this is one of their favorite texts we will examine it. 
Foretelling the fall of Jerusalem which occurred forty years 
after his death, Jesus said that when they saw the armies 
come around the city, they must flee immediately or be 
caught in the city, and perish with the others. Hence he 
said, " Let him v^hich is on the housetop not come down to 


take anything out of his house. Neither let him which is in 
the field return back to take his clothes. And woe unto them 
that are with child, and to them that give suck in those 
days! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
neither on the Sabbath day. For then shall be great tribu- 
lation." Matt. 24: 17-21. 

From this it is argued that the Sabbath would continue to 
be a sacred day after the resurrection. Adventists admit 
that it would not be a violation of the Sabbath to flee on that 
day in case of necessity. Then where is there any argu- 
ment in the text ? If their flight had occurred on the Sab- 
bath to save their lives, would that have desecrated the day ? 
They own that it would not. Then the sacredness of the day 
was not what Jesus had in view. 

The context plainly shows that it was for their safety that 
he was providing, not for the keeping of the day. The proper 
observance of the Sabbath is not the subject at all. The 
dangers and tribulations of that time was the subject. No- 
tice four points. 1. Those with child. 2. Those with 
nursing babes. 3. Fleeing in the winter. 4. Fleeing on 
the Sabbath. If they had to flee suddenly, in haste, and 
without any preparation, even without their ordinary clothes, 
women with child or with little babes, or persons in the cold 
of winter would be liable to sufier or die. So in all these 
three cases Jesus refers to the inconvenience and danger of 
their flight; and this is exactly why he mentions the Sabbath. 
On that day the gates of the city would be shut and so hin- 
der them greatly if not detain them entirely. The gates of 
all the villages through which they must pass would be 
closed. The Jews would suspect them and arrest them as 
traitors. Hence it would be dangerous, almost impossible, 
to flee on that day. A candid person can see that this is all 
there is to that text. Of this I became convinced sometime 
before I gave up the Sabbath, and so I stopped using it. 


MATT. 28: 1, MARK 16: 1, 2. "the sabbath" is the DAI 


"In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawn towards 
the first day of the week." "When the Sabbath was past, 
* * * the first day of the week." According to this the Sab 
oath, after the death of Christ, is still the day before the first 
day of the week Hence the first day of the week on which 
Christ rose was not the Sabbath yet. Answer: All the days 
in the week, in the month, and in the year, still continued to be 
called by their old Jewish names for many years after Christ; 
but it does not follow that they continued to be sacred days, 
for Paul expressly states that all those feasts days, new 
moons, and Sabbath days were nailed to the cross. Col. 2: 
14, 16; Gal. 4: 10, 11; Rom. 14: 5, 6. Take three examples: 
"When the day of Pentecost was fully come," Acts 2: 1; 
**Then were the days of unleavened bread." Acts 12: 3. 
"Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day." Acts 13: 
14. Here, long after the cross, we have the same old names 
for three of the Jewish holy days, viz: Pentecost, days of 
unleavened bread, and Sabbath day. Are all these days still 
holy days because they are still called by their former names ? 
If so, then we ought to observe Pentecost and the days of 
unleavened bread as well as keep the Sabbath. So there is no 
force in the argument from the use of the word Sabbath after 
the cross. The resurrection day was not called the Sabbath in 
the New Testament nor by Christians for several hundred 
years after Christ. It was called "Lord's Day." Rev. 1: 10. 

"7^6 SabhatK''' was the name of the Jewish rest day, 
"which was a shadow of things to come." Col. 2: 16, 17, 
but the resurrection day is another da}^ entirely . It is called 
"the first day of the week," "the eighth day," or the 
"Lord's Day." It is only in an accommodated sense that it 
is called the Sabbath now as we use the words "altar,'* 
"sanctuary," ^*temple," "sacrifice," "Israel," etc. 



This was after Chnst died; hence it shows that they 
thought that the Sabbath was still to be kept. They were 
the followers of Jesus and knew what he taught. Answer: 
But this was before Jesus rose from the dead, before they 
knew anything about his resurrection, and before they had 
any idea of the great change which the gospel was to make 
in the service of God. Their old Jewish idea still blinded 
their minds so that they could not at once take in the nature 
of what Jesus had really come to do. Just before this 
Jesus said: ''I have yet many things to say unto you, but 
ye cannot bear them now." John 16: 12. So he had not 
tried to explain all these less important matters to them; but 
he said that he would, after the resurrection, send them the 
Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth. John 16: 13. It 
was not till after the Holy Ghost came upon them at Pente- 
cost that they began to comprehend the true nature of the 
gospel. So it is no proof that the Jewish Sabbath is binding 
on Gentiles because the Jewish women kept it while Jesus 
was dead and in his gi-ave. Turn to Acts 1: 14, and 2: 1, 
and we find all these same women fifty days after the resur- 
rection still carefully keeping *'the day of Pentecost," 
another Jewish holy day. But do our Sabbatarians keep 
Pentecost because these women kept it ? No, but they 
should if they keep the Sabbath because those women kept 
it. This shows how groundless that argument is. 


They say, the fact that the Sabbath is named 59 times in 
the New Testament is proof that it was still of great import- 
ance and should be kept. Well, the temple is mentioned in 
the New Testament 115 times; circumcision, 55 times; sac- 
rifices, 38 times; the passover, 28 times, etc. Then I suppose 
'^e ought also to have all these over in the gospell 



Sabbatarians think they have a fair argument in the Acts. 
Here the seventh day is always called " the Sabbath," and 
it may be that the Jewish Christians still observed it, and 
met with the Jews in worship on that day. From this 
it is concluded that all Christians should keep that day, too. 
This is based upon the false assumption that whatever cus- 
toms and laws of the old covenant were still observed for a 
few years by the Jewish Christians after the resurrection, 
must be binding upon the Gentile church now. 

A careful examination of what the disciples did really do 
for many years after the resurrection will show that they 
kept all the Mosaic law, including feast days, the Sabbath 
day, sacrifices, circumcision, vows, and the whole Jewish 
ritual. But they did this as Jews, according to their na' 
tional law and long established custom. That they did not do 
so as a Christian duty is manifest from the fact that Gentile 
Christians were not required to observe these things. Acts 
15: 19-28; 21: 25. ''As touching the Gentiles which 
believe, we have written and concluded that they observed 
no such thing." Every mention of the Sabbath in Acts, 
without a single exception, is in connection with the Jewish 
worship on that day. Acts 13: 14, 15, 42-45; 15: 21; 16: 13; 
17: 1, 2; 18: 4. The law and the prophets were read, and 
Jewish worship conducted as usual. Certainly the disciples 
could not hold distinctively Christian meeting here under 
these circumstances. They must assemble by themselves to 
worship Jesus and have the Lord's supper, and that is just 
what we find them doing on the first day of the week. 
Acts 20: 7. There is no record of a single meeting of Gen- 
tile Christians upon the seventh day, nor of Jewish Chris- 
tians, except in the Jewish worship. 

Consider a few facts as to why the Jewish Christians did 
not immediately give up the observance of the Mosaic law. 


How carefully and gradually Jesus unfolded his new doc- 
trines, even to the chosen apostles. To the multitude he spoke 
only in parables ''as they were able to hear it." Mark 4: 33. 
Had Jesus at once and plainly told the people the radical 
chano^e which he had come to make in the Jewish system of 
worship, they would have killed him immediately. Even 
the apostles would doubtless have left him. During all the 
ministry of our Lord, nothing stands out more prominently 
than the fact that he was gradually, but cautiously, prepar- 
ing the minds of his disciples for the great change which his 
gospel was destined to make in the worship of God. The 
great obstacles he had to contend with were their narrow 
views, their tenacity for the forms and cerr nonies and letter 
of the law, and Jewish ideas of God's kingdom. That he 
was to take the throne of David, subjugate the world to 
Israel, and csLrry on the Jewish mode of worship with the 
temple service — this idea was so firmly rooted in the minds 
of even the apostles, that they could not understand Jesus 
even when he plainly told them to the contrary. Hence the 
Saviour simply left them to outgrow these ideas as the 
nature of his gospel more fully dawned upon them, after his 
resurrection and ascension and the descent of the Holy 
Spirit. Just before Jesus died, he said: "I have yet many 
things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. 
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide 
you into all truth." John 16: 12, 13. How often he had 
to say to them, "O fools, and slow of heart to believe." 
Luke 24: 25. "Are ye also yet without understanding?" 
Matt. 15: 16. 

During all the ministry of Christ he never once stated 
directly that any of the Jewish rites would be aboHshed, not 
even sacrifices, the temple service, circumcision, the feast 
days, or anything. Yet he well knew that all these were 
soon to end, and designed that they should. Neither the 


Deople nor the disciples were then prepared for such an' 
announcement. Hence he left these things for them to 
learn later. It is in the epistles of Paul that these changes 
are distinctly stated, just where we find the Jewish Sabbath 

Forty days after the resurrection still found them cling- 
ing to their old Jewish idea of the temporal reign of Jesus 
at Jerusalem. ''Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again 
the kingdom to Israel ?" Knowing that it was impossible 
to correct their wrong notions by a mere statement, Jesus 
left them to outgrow these errors as they learned more of 
the gospel. Now follow them through the book of Acts, 
and observe hov^^^,. long and tenaciously they held on to all the 
observances of the old Jewish law, not only the Sabbath, 
but all the temple service and ceremonies of the Mosaic law. 
On Pentecost we find them keeping the sacred day with the 
other Jews. Acts 2. As late as ten years after the resur- 
rection they wore "preaching the word to none but unto the 
Jews only." Acts 11: 19. Not a sermon had they thought 
of preaching to a Gentile till God, by a special miracle, sent 
Peter to Cornelius. Acts 10. As late as this Peter was 
scrupulously regarding the Mosaic law of meats. He said, 
' 'I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. " 
Verse 14. And he designed to keep right on observing it. 
And when the Holy Spirit came upon the Gentiles, the dis- 
ciples were astonished "because that on the Gentiles also 
was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." Verse 45. 
When he returned to Jerusalem, the whole church was in 
an uproar over itc "And when Peter was come up to 
Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended 
with him, saying. Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, 
and didst eat with them." Acts 11: 2, 3. 

Up to this time, then, we find the church at Jerusalem, 
witJi Peter at its head, still keeping the Jewish law concern 


ing food, and refusing to eat with Gentiles. Now study the 
great council at Jerusalem, held over twenty years after the 
resurrection. Acts 15. Not only did the whole church in 
Judea keep the entire Mosaic law in all its rites, including 
circumcision, but some of them endeavored also to force it 
upon the Gentile converts. Verses 1-19. But through the 
influence of Paul, this move was defeated. If it had not been 
that, in the providence of God, Paul was raised up to oppose 
it, the whole Christian church would have been placed 
under the bondage of the Mosaic law. As it was, that coun- 
cil freed only the Gentile converts from obedience to Moses' 
law. Acts 15: 19, 23; 21: 25. All Jewish Christians still 
kept it. 

Even as late as A. D. 60, or nearly thirty years after the 
cross, we still find the whole Jewish church in Judea strictly 
keeping the law of Moses as to circumcision, ofierings, 
vows, shaving the head, etc. Not only did they themselves 
observe all these rites of the old law, but they required all 
Jewish Christians throughout the world to do the same. 
When Paul went up to Jerusalem only a few years before 
his death, they demanded of him a pledge that he himself 
also kept these rites. Read carefully Acts 21: 20-26. 

These words show conclusively that the Jewish Christians 
observed all the rites of the laws of Moses as late as that, 
which was but a few years before the fall of Jerusalem. All 
church historians agree that the Jewish Christians continued 
to observe the seventh day, even for some time after the fall 
of Jerusalem, as we have seen. 

Philip Schafi*, the greatest of living authors, in his History 
of the Apostolical Church, page 118, says: "So far as we 
know, the Jewish Christians of the first generation, at least 
in Palestine, scripturally observed the Sal^bath, the annual 
Jewish feasts, and the whole Mosaic ritual, and celebrated in 
addition to these .the Christian Sunday, the death and resur 


rection of the Lord, and the holy supper. But this union 
was gradually weakened, and was at last entirely broken by 
the destruction of the temple. ^ -^ "^ The Jewish Sab 
bath passed into the Christian Sunday." Elder Waggoner, 
Adventist, says: "Dr. Schafi is justly esteemed as a man 
of extensive learning, and whose testimony regarding facts 
no one would call in question," Replies to Canright, page 
132. Good. Now let them accept Dr. Schaflf's statement 
and cease their denials. 

. Elder Butler, Adventist, truly says: "Indeed, it may well 
be doubted whether a large portion of the early church who 
were Jews before conversion ever fully realized the scope 
and extent of the gospel in setting aside those laws pecu- 
liarly Jewish. They clung to them, and were zealous for 
them long after they were abolished at the cross. To Paul 
we are indebted, through the blessing of God, for the only 
full explanation of the proper relation of these laws to the 
plan of salvation." "Law in Galatians," page 8. 

How much, then, does it prove in favor of the Jewish 
Sabbath to find that it was still called "the Sabbath," or that 
it was kept by the Jewish Christians, or even by Paul him- 
self ? Just nothing at all; for by the same argument, as we 
have seen, we must observe the passover, pentecost, ofier 
offerings, make vows, shave your heads, be circumcised, and 
keep all the rites of the Mosaic law the same as those disci- 
ples did for years. 



Seventh-Day Adventists try to make an argument for the 
Jewish Sabbath from PauFs example. They count up some 
84 Sabbaths which they claim he kept, and they say that if 
he kept it we ought also. I used to think there was great 
force in this argument and have used it scores of times to 


convince others. But I became satisfied finally that the whole 
argument was a fallacy. Let us examine it. 

1. Paul was a Jew, but we are Gentiles. 

2. Paul was brought up in all the observances of the Jew 
ish law. Acts 22: 3. We were not. 

3. The great desire of Paul's heart was to win his Jew- 
ish brethren to Christ. To do this he was willing to die, 
}ea even to be accursed himself. Kom. 9: 3, 4. 

4. To win these Jewish brethren he was very cautious not to 
do anything, as far as he could possibly avoid it, Avhich would 
prejudice them against him and so cut ofl" his access to 

5. As these Jews were very zealous in the observance of 
all the Jewish law, Paul knew that he must himself also 
keep this law if he were to obtain any access to them. 
Hence he says: "Unto the Jews I became as a Jew that I 
might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law [the 
Jews], as under the law, that I might gain them that are 
under the law." "And this I do for the gospel's sake." 1 
Cor. 9: 20, 23. See what he did in the case of Timothy. 
''Him would Paul have to go forth with him; and took 
and circumcised him because of the Jews which were in 
those quarters; for they knew all that his father was a 
Greek." Acts 16: 3. Paul wanted Timothy to help him 
among the Jews, but he knew that the Jews would not listen 
to him if he were not circumcised. So he circumcised 
Timothy to gain the Jews, though he said, ' 'Circumcision is 
nothing." 1 Cor. 7: 19. For just the same reason he kept 
the Pentecost, Acts 18: 21; 20: 16; shaved his head. Acts 18: 
18; made ofierings. Acts 21: 20-26; and lived the same as 
the Jews did, though he knew and taught that all these 
things were done away. 

Now suppose it could be shown that Paul always kept the 
Sabbath, would that prove that he regarded it as obligatory 


upon all Christians, specially the Gentile Christians I Sureljf 
not. To them he wrote very plainly that they were not 
to keep the law concerning meats, drinks, feast da3''S, new 
moons and Sabbath days. See Col. 2: 14-17; Rom. 14: 1-5; 
Gal. 4: 10. He taught with regard to all these just as he did 
about circumcision, Gal. 5: 2, that none of these were neces- 
sary, 3^et he himself circumcised Timothy. 

We will now examine every text where Paul is said to 
have kept the Sabbath. Acts 13: 14, 15. "He went into the 
synagof^ue on the Sabbath day and sat down. After the 
reading of the law and the prophets" he was invited to 
preach to them, which he did. This was with the Jews in 
Jewish worship, in the Jewish sjmagogue, on the Jewish 
Sabbath. Paul as a Jew joined them in this, in order to 
preach the gospel to them. So, verses 42-46, on the next 
Sabbath he met with them again in the same place for the 
same purpose. This was two Sabbaths Paul kept. Acts 16: 
13, "on the Sabbath he went out of the city by a river side 
where prayer was wont to be made," or rather where there 
was a proseuche^ a Jewish house of prayer. So the Syriac 
and Greek. Here he found Jewish women at worship, 
and preached Jesus to them. This was the third Sabbath 
he kept. Acts 17: 1, 2. Paul "came to Thessalonica where 
was a synagogue of the Jews, * * -^^ and three Sab- 
bath days reasoned with them." Here again it was in the 
Jewish worship among the Jews in their synagogue on their 
Sabbath. Three more Sabbaths here, six so far. Acts 18: 
1-4. Paul is again among the Jews ' 'and he reasoned in the 
synagogue every Sabbath and persuaded the Jews and the 
Greeks." Same as before, his Sabbath keeping is every 
time while he is among the Jews in their Sabbath worship. 
But how many Sabbaths did he meet with them here ? Verse 
11 says: Paul remained there in Corinth one "year and six 
months," which would be 78 weeks. Hence Adventists say 


he kept 78 Sabbaths here. These added to six before make 
8tl:. But verses 6 and 7 put a difierent face on the matter. 
Instead of reasoning in the synagogue every Sabbath all this 
time, he withdrew from the Jews and said, "Henceforth 1 
will oro unto the Gentiles." Then he went into the house of 
Justus near the synagogue. So there is no evidence that he 
preached in the synagogue more than a few Sabbaths. So 
their 84 Sabbaths that Paul kept dwindled down to ten or a 
dozen and all these were with the Jews in Jewish worship. 
And this he himself explains by saying, "Unto the Jews I 
became as a Jew that I might gain the Jews." 1 Cor. 
9: 20. 

Not one single case can be found where Paul kept the Sab- 
bath in a Christian assembly, nor is it ever mentioned in any 
way in connection with Christian meetings, while it is said 
that the disciples met on the first day of the week. 
Mark this: "Wherever the apostles entered the Jewish 
synagogues on the Sabbath to preach, it was before the Chris- 
tian church was planted in such places." 


In Acts 25: 8, Paul says he had done nothing "against the 
law of the Jews," and in Acts 28: 17 says, he had "com- 
mitted nothing against the people or customs of our fathers." 
From this it is claimed that he must have kept the SabbaiL, 
for that was the law and custom of the fathers. True, but 
so it was their custom to circumcise, to offer sacrifices, to 
keep the new moons, yearly feasts, etc. Hence Paul inu>t 
have done all these. Shall we then do all these because 
Paul as a Jew did ? Hardly. Notice that nearly every 
argument applies equally as well to all the Jewish law 
and would bind that whole system on Christians ! 



1. We now come to the direct statement of Paul that the 
Sabbath was abolished: Col. 2: 14, 16, 17. ''Blotting out 
the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which 
was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his 
cross. ^ ^ * Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or 
in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or 
of the Sabbath days; which are a shadow of things to come; 
but the body is of Christ. " With other Jewish ordinances, 
the Sabbath was blotted out and nailed to the cross; there- 
fore no man is to judge us about keeping *'the Sabbath 
days." The statement is positive and plain. When I kept 
the seventh day this text always perplexed me as it does my 
Advent brethren now, say what they will. Paul directly 
names "the Sabbath" or "the Sabbath days," for there is no 
difference, as among the shadows which have passed away. 

2. It is said by some that "the Sabbath days," plural 
number, is not the same as "the Sabbath," singular number^ 
hence is not the weekly Sabbath. This is a groundless ob- 
jection, for both the singular and the plural numbers are 
used indifferently for the weekly Sabbath. Thus Green- 
field's Greek N. T. Lexicon says: "Sabbaton. The Sab- 
bath, ^ * * both in the singular and plural. " Bagster's 
Greek Lexicon says: "The Jewish Sabbath both in the 
singular and plural." So plain is this fact that even Elder 
Smith, Adventist, is compelled to admit it though he tries 
to save his theory by excepting Col. 2, and Acts 17: 2, but 
without reason. He says: "When it [Sabbaton] is used in 



the plural form [excepting Acts 17: 2 and Col. 2: 16], it 
means just the same as if it had been written in the singu- 
lar." Greek Falsehood, page 8. Col. 2: 16, is no exception 
to the rule. In Acts 17: 2, the word tln^ee is what marks 
the plural. The Kevised Version properly renders Col. 2: 
16, in the singular, thus: "Let no man therefore judge you 
in respect of a Sabbath day," singular number. Sawyer's 
translation says: "In respect to a feast, or new moon, or Sab- 
bath," singular. The Bible Union says: "Of a feast day, 
or of a new moon, or of a Sabbath," singular. 

A few quotations will show that both the singular and 
plural numbers are used for the weekly Sabbath. "My 
Sabbaths [plural] shall ye keep for it [singular] is a sign 
between me and you." Ex. 31:13. This is the weekly 
Sabbath. "Keep my Sabbaths." Lev. 19: 3. "Beside 
the Sabbaths of the Lord." Lev. 23: 38. Adventists argue 
that this is the weekly Sabbath. " Blessed is the man that 

* * "^ keepeth the Sabbath," " the eunuchs that keep my 
Sabbaths." Isa. 56: 2, 4. Either singular or plural, no 
difference. " I gave them my Sabbaths to be a sign. " Ez. 
20: 12. This is the weekly Sabbath, as Adventists well 
know. "On the Sabbath days [plural] the priests in the 
temple profane the Sabbath" [singular]. Matt. 12: 5. Here 
we have in the same verse both the plural and singular used 
for the weekly Sabbath. "Is it lawful to heal on the Sab- 
bath days ?" Matt. 12: 10. "Taught them on the Sabbath 
days." Luke 4: 31. "Three Sabbath days reasoned with 
them." Acts 17: 2. "Let no man therefore judge you 

* ^ * in respect of the Sabbath day s. " Col. 2: 16. 
Who can read this list of texts and not be profoundly im- 
pressed that by "the Sabbath days" of Col. 2: 16 Paul 
means just what that language means in all the other cases ? 
Of course he did, and no other reasonable application can be 
made of it. 


3. In the Greek, in which Paul wrote Col. 2: 16, he uses 
not only the same word which is always used for the weekly 
Sabbath, but exactly the same form of the word used in the 
fourth commandment itself ! I will give the Greek word 
for " Sabbath days" in Col. 2: 16 and other texts where the 
same word and same form of the word, letter for letter, is 
used for the weekly Sabbath. Col. 2: 16. "Let no man judge 
you in respect to the Sabbath days," Greek, aaft^aTcov, 
Sabbaton, genitive plural. 

Ex. 20: 8, 10, fourth commandment, "Remember the Sab- 
bath day [Greek, GafifiarGDv, Sabbaton, genitive plural] to 
keep it holy." "But the seventh day is the Sabbath [Greek, 
G aft /Sara, Sabbate, accusative plural] of the Lord." Here it 
will be seen that Paul uses the same Greek word, letter for 
letter, that is used in the decalogue. Hence he surely meant 
that very Sabbath day. Notice, further, that in each case 
in the fourth commandment where the word "Sabbath" 
occurs it is plural in the Greek. So if the use of the plural 
in Col. 2 shows any thing, it shows that the Sabbath of the 
decalogue is meant. Moreover, the Revised Version renders 
Ex. 20: 10, and Col. 2: 16, exactly alike. Thus: "The 
seventh day is a Sabbath unto the Lord." "Let no man 
judge you in respect of 'a Sabbath.'" Plainly, then. Col. 
2: 16, refers to the Sabbath of Ex. 20: 8-11. 

Further, Gaf3^aTcovy Sabbaton, genitive plural, the form 
of the word used in Col. 2: 16, is the one often used in other 
texts for the weekly Sabbath. Thus: Ex. 35: 3. "Kindle no 
^Pg * * * upon the Sabbath day," a a^ par gov. 

Lev. 23- 38. "Beside the Sabbaths, oaftPaTODv, of the 

Lev. 24: 8: "Every Sabbath, oap^arGov, he shall set it 
in order." 

Num. 15: 32. "Gathered sticks upon the Sabbath aay," 


Numbers 28: 9. ''On the Sabbath, ffajS/SaTGDv, day two 

Deut. 5: 12. Fourth commandment again, "Keep the 
Sabbath, Ga(3f3aTcov, day." 

Isa. 58: 13. ''Turn away thy foot from the Sabbath," 

Matt. 28: 1. "In the end of the Sabbath," aa/S/SaTcoy. 

Luke 4: 16. "He went into the synagogue on the Sab- 
bath, aa/SjSaroDVy day " 

Acts 13: 14. "Went into the synagogue on the Sabbath, 
(Saf5(5arGDVy day." 

Col. 2: 16. "Let no man therefore judge you * * in 
respect of the Sabbath, Ga(5parcov, days." 

Unless a man is blinded by a pet theory, he must see that 
Col. 2: 16 does surely mean the weekly Sabbath, as in all 
the other texts where the same word occurs. 

4. The only word ever used in the Bible for the weekly 
Sabbath is the very one Paul did use, (JafSfSaroDv, Sahhaton. 
So if he had meant to name that Sabbath, what else could 
he have said than just what he did say, the Sabbath days ? 
Why, then, deny that he means just what he says when he 
could have said nothing else if he had meant the Sabbath ? 

5. The word Sabbath occurs in the New Testament 60 
times. Seventh-Day Adventists admit that in 59 out of these 
60 cases it means the weekly Sabbath; but in the 60th cast, 
where exactly the same word is used both in Greek and 
English, as we have seen, they say it must mean something 
else! Isn't that remarkable? Hear them: "In the New 
Testament the Sabbath of the Lord is mentioned 59 times, 
and those local Sabbaths, which expired by limitation and 
ceased at the cross, are mentioned once." Scripture Refer- 
ences, p. 9. Strange that the Sabbath means the Sabbath 
59 times and the 60th time it don't ! "Jewish feasts are 
often spoken of in the New Testament but, not one of them 


anywhere is called a Sabbath or credited with the nature of 
a Sabbath." The Sabbath for Man, p. 544. 

6. *'The feast days and new moons" of Col. 2: 16, include 
all the holy days of the Jews except the weekly Sabbath; 
hence there was nothing else left to which it could apply but 
that Sabbath. The entire list is given in Num. 28 and 29. 

7. But what settles it beyond a reasonable doubt that 
Col. 2: 16, does refer to the weekly Sabbaths is the fact that 
exactly the same list of holy days here given by Paul is 
given about a dozen times in the Old Testament, where we 
know it means the seventh day. 

Turn to Num. 28 and 29, and you have a detailed law 
as to just what offerings shall be made on each day of the 
whole year. The first were the daily offerings of "two 
lambs," day by day, for a continual burnt offering. "The 
one lamb shalt thou offer in the morning, and the other lamb 
shalt thou offer at the even. " Verses 3 and 4. The second 
were the offerings on the sabbath. "And on the sabbath 
day two lambs of the first year without spot," verses 9 and 
10. None will deny that this was the weekly sabbath. 
Third, in the very next verse come the new moons. "And 
in the beginning of your months ye shall offer a burnt offer- 
ing unto the Lord," verses 11-15. Fourth comes the annual 
feast days. "And in the fourteenth day of the first month 
is the passover of the Lord," verse 16. Then follows a com- 
plete list of all the annual feast days, closing with these 
words, "These things shall ye do unto the Lord in your set 
feasts, "Num 29: 39. 

Here we have the law for the daily ^ weeTdy^ monthly^ and 
ijearly offerings; or, those on each day, on the weekly sab- 
baths, on the new moons, and on the yearly feast days. 
Now read the following texts, and notice how this list of 
daily offerings, offerings on the sabbaths, on the new moons, 
and on the set feasts, as laid down in the law of Moses, 


is repeatedly referred to in almost exactly the words of 
Col. 2: 16. 

1. Chron. 23: 30, 31: ''To stand every morning to 
thank and praise the Lord, and likewise at even; and to 
ofler all burnt sacrifices unto to the Lord in the sabbaths, in 
the new moons, and on the set feasts, by number, accord- 
ing to the order commanded unto them." Here is a direct 
reference to the daily ofierings, oflerings on the w eekly sab- 
baths, new moons and set feasts, just as ordered in Num. 
28 and 29. Can any one doubt that "the sabbaths" here 
are the weekly sabbaths, the same as there? Certainly 

2. Chron. 2: 4: "Behold, I build an house to the name 
of the Lord my God, to dedicate it to him, and to burn be- 
fore him sweet incense, and for the continual shew bread, 
and for the burnt ofierings morning and evening [daily], on 
the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons [monthly], 
and on the solemn feasts [yearly] of the Lord. " Precisely 
the same list again, and in the same order, hence the weekly 
sabbaths are the ones named. Besides, it would be absurd 
to suppose that Solomon would name all the other and minor 
holy days, but say nothing about the chiefest of all days, 
the weekly sabbaths. Every candid man would admit that 
"the sabbaths" here are the weekly sabbaths, and so they are 
in all the passages which follow. 

2. Chron. 8: 13: "Even after a certain rate every day 
[daily again], offering according to the commandment of 
Moses, on the sabbaths [weekly], and on the new moons 
[monthly], and on the solemn feasts [yearly], three times in 
the year." Same list and order as before. 

2. Chron. 31: 3: "The morning and evening burnt 
ofierings, and the burnt ofierings for the sabbaths, and for 
the new moons, and for the set feasts, as it is written in the 
law of the Lord." The same list again, daily, weekly, 


monthly and yearly offerings, just in the order they would 
naturally come, and just as given "in the law of the Lord." 
Num. 28 and 29. But if the sabbaths are not the weekly 
sabbaths, then the Lord names the daily, monthly and yearly 
offerings, but skips the weekly offerings. Every thinking 
man knows that such an interpretation is false. But it is the 
only way the sabbaths can be saved from Paul's list, Col. 2: 
16, for that is the same as all these. As the object in these 
passages is to mention the service of God which must be 
performed on each of the holy days, it would be absurd to 
suppose that all the other sacred days in the whole year 
would be carefully mentioned time and again, while no 
reference whatever is made to the weekly sabbaths, the 
most important and the most numerous of all the sacred 

Neh. 10: 33: '*For the shew bread, and for the continual 
meat offering, and for the continual burnt offering, of the 
sabbaths, of the new moons, for the set feasts. " Same list 
again, daily, weekly, monthly and yearly. Either the 
weekly sabbaths are meant here, or else reference to the 
worship of God on the Sabbath is always studiously avoided, 
while all the rest is carefully mentioned. The evidence is too 
plain to mistake which. 

Ezek. 45: 17: "Offerings in the feasts, and in the new 
moons, and in the sabbaths. " Here are named exactly the 
same days that Paul gives in Col. 2: 16, and in the same 
order, yearly, monthly, weekly. 

Hosea 2: 11: ''I will also cause all her mirth to cease, 
her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her 
solemn feasts." Same list of holy days that we have had 
over and over, where wo know that sabbath meant the 
seventh day . 

Col. 2: 16: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or 
in drink, or in respect of a feast day, (Rev. Version), or <d 


the new moon, or of the sabbath days." Here, as before, 
are the yearly, monthly and weekly holy days just as laid 
down in the law where we know the weekly sabbaths are 
meant. It is evident that Paul bad in his mind those lists of 
holy days so often given in the Old Testament, where the 
sabbath is included. 

The words "the sabbath days*' would certainly embrace 
the weekly sabbaths unless they were especially named as ex- 
cepted. But no such exception is made. Hence we must 
apply the term as it is used in the law, to the seventh 

Hosea 2: 11, is a plain prophecy that all these holy 
days should cease just as we know has happened in 
fact; and in Col. 2: 16, is proof that they were nailed to 
tlie cross. 


Btmyan. — On this text, John Bunyan, than whom no 
man ever studied his Bible more closely, says: "Here also as 
he [Paul] serveth other holy days he serveth the Sabbath, he 
gives a liberty to believers to refuse the observation of it. 
Nor hath the apostle (since he saith, or of the sabbath), one 
would think, left any hole out at which men's inventions 
could get." Again: "The old seventh-day Sabbath is 
aboHshed and done away." Bunyan's Complete Works, 
pages 899, 900. 

Dr. Scott says: "Doubtless, this last related principally 
to the weekly Sabbath, which, as observed on the seventh 
day, was now become a part of the abrogated Jewish 

27ie Pulpit Commentary on this text says: "The *Sab- 
bath days' referred to the Jewish Sabbath which was always 
observed on Saturday. " ' 'If the ordinance of the Sabbath had 
been in any form of lasting obligation on the Christian church, 


it would have been quite impossible for the apostle to have 
used this language." 

John Wesley: — "In respect of a yearly feast, the new 
moon, or the weekly Jewish Sabbath." 

Dr. Zee, Methodist: — "The apostle refers to the seventh- 
day Sabbath and he gives them clearly to understand that 
they are not morally bound to observe it. * * * By a 
'holy day' and the 'new moon,' he included all other feasts 
and rests which might be called Sabbaths, leaving nothing 
but the seventh day Sabbath to be meant by the Sabbath 
days." Lee's Theology, page 375. 

9. That upon which Seventh-Day Adventists rely to save 
this text from applying to the sabbath is the asser- 
tion that there were several yearly or annual sabbath days, 
and that Paul's language must apply to these instead of to 
the weekly sabbaths. Thus Elder Andrews, in his "History 
of the Sabbath," says, "There were seven annual sabbaths," 
and then he names all the Jewish feast days, as the pente- 
cost, day of atonement, etc., and cites Lev. 23. It is 
true that in our English version the word sahhath is applied 
to four of these feast days. But we turn tc the Greek, in 
which Paul wrote, and find that the word for "sabbath" is 
sabbaton. Is that the term used where the word sabbath is 
applied to the annual feast days ? No, indeed, except in just 
barely one instance. The day of atonement is called a sab- 
bath {sabbaton) in the Greek. Lev. 23: 32. "In the Old 
Testament Hebrew none of those feast days are ever 
termed a Sabbath, save the day of atonement." Sabbath 
for Man, page 544. 

The Hebrew word for sabbath is shdbhath. In only this one 
instance is it ever applied to any of the annual festivals. 
But the word "sabbath" in the English version, when ap- 
plied to these annual feasts, is from the Greek term anapavr 
sis^ and in the Hebrew from sA^JJ^zJA^ti. These words should 


not be translated * 'sabbath," but should be rendered '*rest," 
as they are in the Revised Version. Thus all these texts 
read in the New Version: "In the seventh month, in the 
first day of the month, there shall be a solemn rest unto 
you." Lev. 23: 24. "On the first day shall be a solemn 
rest^ and on the eighth day shall be a solemn rest^''^ verse 39. 
So also in the English version of the Hebrew used by the 
Jews these words are translated rest^ not sabbath. Thus: 
"In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, shall 
ye have a ?'^5^," not sabbath, verse 24. "On the first day 
shall be a rest^ and on the eighth day shall be a ^v^^," 
verse 39. 

Hence, except the weekly sabbaths, among all the feast 
days and holy days of the Old Testament only one single 
day in the whole year is ever called a sabbath. So it is not 
correct to speak of "the annual sabbaths," much less to say 
that there were seven of them. There was just one, and no 
more, and this one was included in the annual feast days. 
Even Elder Andrews confesses that ' 'the annual sabbaths, 
were part and parcel of these feasts and could have no exist- 
ence until after the feasts to which they belonged had been 
instituted. Thus the first and second of these Sabbaths 
were the first and seventh days of the pascal feast. The 
third annual sabbath was identical with the feast of pente- 
cost." History of the Sabbath, page 86. By his own con- 
fession the days he calls annual sabbaths were all included 
in those yearly feasts and could have no existence separate 
from them. Feast days (Jieortes) is the term embracing all 
those days, as we have seen. Hence "the sabbath days" 
(sahhatOT)) must apply only to the weekly sabbaths. Or, to 
say the least, this term being pre-emiently , almost exclusively, 
applied to the weekly sabbaths, must include them any way, 
whether it did any others or not. 

10. Seventh-Day Adventists try to make a difference b©- 


tween "the Sabbaths of the Lord," Lev. 23: 38; Ex. 20: 10, 
and "her Sabbaths," Hosea 2: llo They say that "her 
Sabbaths," were the Jewish Sabbaths, yearly feast days; but 
that the Lord's Sabbath is never called Tier Sabbaths. The 
assertion is contrary to facts. 

Why were the yearly holy days her days ? Did the Jews 
appoint them? No; the Lord appointed them just as he 
did tiie sabbath, and gave them to Israel to keep, just as he 
gave th^m the sabbath to keep. Hence, from one point of 
view they are the Lord's, but from another view they are 
her days. God's, because he commanded them; hers, because 
given to them. * 'I gave them my sabbaths. " So we read 
of nearly every sacred institution of the Bible. In one place 
it is "the Lord's" and in the next it is "hers," "yours" or 
"theirs," but the same institution all the time. Thus we 
read of the temple: "Mine house," Is. 56: 7; "your house," 
Matt. 23: 38. Of the sacrifices: "The sacrifices of the 
Lord," Lev. 10: 13; "my oflering, and my bread for my 
sacrifices," Num. 28: 2; "your burnt ofierings, and your 
sacrifices, and your tithes, " Deut. 12:6. Of the law: "My 
law," Jer. 6: 19; "your law," John 10: 34. Now notice par- 
ticularly that the feast days are spoken of in exactly the 
same manner that the sabbath is; that is, "my feasts," and 
"her leasts," "my sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." Thus: 
"The Lord's passover," Ex. 12: 11; "the feast of the Lord," 
Lev. 23: 4; "the sabbaths of the Lord," verse 38; "my 
feasts," verse 2; "my sabbaths," Ex. 31: 13; "a feast unto 
the Lord," Lev. 23: 41; "the holy sabbath unto the Lord," 
Ex. 16: 23; "Aer feast days, her new moons, and her sab 
baths," Hosea 2: 11. These quotations aresuflicient to show 
the fallacy of trying to make a distinction between "my 
sabbaths" and "her sabbaths." The same argument would 
prove that "my feasts" and "her feasts," "my sacrifices" 
and "your sacrifices," "my house" and "your house," etc., 


were entirely different. But everybody knows better. 
These expressions apply to the same thing from different 
standpoints; the sabbaths of the Lord as appointed by him; 
her sabbaths as kept by them; and this is the whole of it. 

11. Paul represents these things as ''blotted out," 
"nailed to the cross." Col. 2: 14. It is said that this could 
not apply to the Sabbath which was engraved in the stones 
in the decalogue, as you could not blot out nor nail up this. 
The answer is easy. To blot out and to nail up are only 
used as an illustration. Anciently a document that had been 
cancelled, or abolished, was rubbed or blotted out, or a nail 
was driven through it, as now a conductor punches a 
ticket to show that it has been used up. As an illustration 
it could be applied to laws written in any manner, no 
matter what. Such objections are unworthy a candid man. 
Paul says these things were against us; but it is said that 
the Sabbath was not against us; hence it cannot mean that. 
Answer: 1. Paul says it was; that ought to settle it. 2. The 
Jewish Sabbath was the great sign of Judaism. Ez. 20: 
10-13; Deut. 5: 15. As such, it carried with it that whole 
system and so was against Christians. 

12. It is said that the weekly Sabbath was never asso- 
ciated with meats, drinks, feast days, etc., as in Col. 2: 16. 
This is a great mistake as we have already seen. It is 
classed with these a score of times. See Lev. 23: 2-6; Num. 
28: 3-11; 1 Chron. 23: 29-31, etc. 

13. But it is argued that as "the sabbath days" of Col. 
2: 16, "are a shadow of things to come," verse 17, and the 
weekly Sabbath is a memorial of creation, pointing back to 
the beginning, therefore they cannot be the same, for the 
sabbath could not point both ways. But is not this a mere 
assertion without any proof ? How do we know that it can- 
not point both ways ? The passover was a memorial of their 
deliverance from Egypt, and always pointed back to that 


event. Ex. 12: 11-17. Yet it was also a shadow of Christ 
Col. 2: 16-17. "Even Christ our passover is sacrificed for 
us," 1 Cor. 5:7. So all these annual feasts were types of 
Christ in some way, and yet all were memorials also of 
past events, as all know. But who would ever have thought 
of this if the apostle had not said so ? 

If, then, these feast days could be both memorials and 
types, pointing both ways, so can the Sabbath. Paul says 
plainly that the Sabbath days are a shadow of things to 
come; and one plain statement of inspiration is worth a 
thousand of our vain reasonings. This is in harmony with 
Paul's argument in Heb. 4: 1-11, that the seventh day is a 
type. For forty years they have tried to explain away this 
text, and to show that it really cannot mean what it says; 
but there it stands and mocks all their theories. The Sab- 
bath is a type, for inspiration says so. 

Again, it is said that the Sabbath was instituted before 
the fall, but types could not have been instituted till after 
the fall. How do you know that they could not be ? Where 
does the Bible say so ? Peter says of Christ: ''Who verily 
was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but 
was manifested in these last times for you," 1 Peter 1: 20. 
The revelator says, "The Lamb slain from the foundation 
of the world," Rev. 13: 8. If, then, Christ before the 
foundation of the world was ordained to die, then the Sab- 
bath might have been desisjned even before the creation of 
the earth, as a type of Christ. 

Dr. Watson says: "It is used as an expressive type of 
the heavenly and eternal rest." Theol. Inst. Vol. II, page 
509. The Pulpit Commentary says: "The Sabbath of the 
Jews was typical." On Col. 2: 17. Dr. Adam Clarke says: 
"The truth is, the Sabbath is considered as a type." On 
Ex. 20: 8. Even Elder Andrews, Seventh-Day Adventist, 
says: "When the Creator gave existence to our world, did 


he not forsee the fall of man ? And, foreseeing that fall, 
did he not entertain the purpose of redeeming man ? And 
does it not follow that the purpose of redemption was en- 
tertained in that of creation ?" History of the Sabbath, 
page 151. Exactly; and so the Sabbath as a type of that 
redemption might have been given in Eden according to 
their own showing. So, on close inspection, every argu- 
ment of our Seventh-Day brethren on Col. 2 fails them. 

14. By a false and ungrammatical construction of the 
relative pronoun '^whicK'^ in Col. 2: 17, Adventists try 
to exclude the weekly Jewish Sabbath from the text. They 
make the pronoun which refer only to ^Hhe Sabbath days,^^ 
making it read, "Those Sabbath days which are a shadow." 
This they say, implies that there are other Sabbaths which 
are not a shadow, that is the seventh day. But the Greek 
word for "Sabbath days" is aa^/Saroov, Sabbaton^ genitive 
plural, while the word for '''which'*'' is a^ ha^ nominative 
plural, neuter. Hence which cannot agree with Sabbath 
days, as any scholar knows. "Which are a shadow" relates 
to the whole list given in verse 16, viz., meats, drinks, feast 
days, new moons and Sabbaths. The revised version ren- 
ders it, "a feast day, or a new moon, or a Sabbath day, 
which are a shadow." Not simply the Sabbath alone, but 
all these together were a shadow. Hence the phrase, "which 
are a shadow," applies to each item in verse 16. Does Paul, 
then, mean to say that only certain feast days, certain new 
moons, and certain Sabbaths were shadows, while there 
were other feast days, other new moons and other Sabbaths 
which were not shadows and so were excepted from his list ? 
No, he makes no exception whatever, neither of feasts, 
moons, or Sabbaths. All w^ere included, none were ex- 
cepted. Hence as Paul included every feast day, and 
every new moon, so he also included every Sabbath of the 
Old Testament, and that took in the weekly Sabbath as the 


chief of all, to say the least. So the last peg on which to 
hang the Jewish Sabbath goes down. 

Professor A. M. Weston, President of Eureka College, 
111., says very truly: "If the Sabbath does not look to 
Christ for its underlying principle, then it is the one im- 
portant observance of the Old and New Testament that fails 
to do so." The Evolution of a Shadow, page 16. We know 
that there was in Eden one type of Christ, that was Adam, 
for the Bible says so, Rom. 5: 14. "Adam * -^ * who 
is the Jlgure of him that was to come." Figure is from 
the Greek rvnoz, tupos^ type. "Who was the type of him 
that was to come." Syriac, Diaglott, Sawyer, Living 
Oracles, and Bible Union Translations. Hence types were 
instituted in Eden. Therefore the Sabbath cannot be ex- 
cepted from the types on that ground. 

In Gal. 4: 10, 11, Paul sets aside the keeping the Jewish 
Sabbath and all those holy days of the law. "Ye observe 
days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of 
you." That this refers to the holy daj^s of the old law is 
proved by his reference to that law, both before and after 
this text. Thus: "The law was our schoolmaster to bring 
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But 
after that faith is come we are no longer under a ichooL 
master." Gal. 3: 24, 25. That law has ended at the cross 
as Paul said in Col. 2: 14-17. Again: "Tell me, ye that 
desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ?" Gal 
4: 21. "Ye are not under the law." Gal. 5: 18. So, 
then, he means the holy days of the law and these included 
the Sabbath as the chief of all. Look at his list: Days^ 
(Sabbath days, weekly), months (new moons), times (yearly 
feasts), and years (Sabbatical years). This is exactly the 
list of Jewish holy times. 

To the Romans Paul taught the same doctrine: the obser* 
Vance of the Jewish holy days was not to be regarded. 


*'One man estecmeth one day above another; another 
esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per- 
suaded in his own mind." Kom. 14: 5. 

Dr. Potts, Methodlt^t, says: "Thiit the Sabbath question 
entered into PauFs reasonings on the occasion is evident 
from Rom. 14: 1-6 " The Lord's Day Our Sabbath, page 
27. These were the days enjoined in the law for it is of the 
law that he treats all through the book of Romans. He 
makes no exception of the Sabbath day, but says plainly 
^'^ every day.'^'^ Only a few verses before he has quoted five 
of the ten commandments, Chap. 13: 9, showing that he 
included the days of the decalogue. It does not avail to say 
that Paul means only the annual Sabbaths because he men- 
tions eating meat and herbs. I have already proved that 
the weekly Sabbath was associated with these time and 

What proves that Paul did intend to set aside the Sabbath, 
as his words naturally mean, is the fact that nowhere does he 
ever in all his instructions to the churches say one word in 
lav or of keeping the Sabbath. Time and again he enjoins 
every other duty, but never a word about keeping the Sab- 
bath in all his fourteen letters. Most of those to whom ke 
wrote were Gentiles who never had kept the Sabbath and 
hence needed instructions in it if they were to keep it. But not 
a word does he say to them about it; though he does com- 
mand them about the first day of the week. 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2. 

But it is said that this view of Puul's language abolishes 
all holy days and leaves the church without any rest day. 
The answer is easy and manifest. Paul was treating of the 
old institutions w^hich had been nailed to the cross. Col. 2: 
14. Hence his language has no reference to the new insti- 
tutions of the gospel, of which there might have been a 
dozen holy days, so far as these texts are concerned. 




If Sabbatarians are right on the Sabbath question, then 
the whole Christian church has broken the Sabbath for the 
last 1,800 years, and has kept Sunday, ''a popish institu- 
tion," "the mark of the beast," in its stead. During these 
long ages all the holy men, martyrs, reformers, commenta- 
tors, historians and Christian scholars, with all their seeking 
of God, searching the Bible, and studying history, never 
discovered this great mistake! Is it reasonable to believe 
that the entire church, during all its history, has been 
trampling upon one of God's most holy commandments ? 
Can it be that the wrath of God is now to be poured out 
upon the church for keeping the same day that all others 
have kept for r, 800 years? Would God have blessed the 
reformers and his church as he has, if Sunday-keeping 
is such a fearful crime against God as is now claimed ? 

Now, just to think that the whole church of Christ, im- 
mediately after the death of the apostles, should fall into 
this fearful sin and error, and practice this crime without 
rebuke during the entire history of the church, till just a 
few days before Jesus comes, and then only a few find it 
out and change. According to the Seventh-Day Adventists, 
Luther, Calvin, Knox, Wesley, with all the church of 
Christ for hundreds of years, committed two fearful sins 
each week of their lives; they broke the holy Sabbath, the 
most important commandment in the decalogue, and kept 



Sunday, the marlt of the beast! Yet God has let the whole 
thing go on without any protest, till the last minute of time, 
and now everybody who does not acccept this "new light," 
is to be hopelessiy damned for doing what Christians gen- 
erally have always done! In all candor, this is a pretty big 
pill to swallow. 

But Sabbatarians say that this has nothing to do with the 
case. "Our appeal is to the Bible alone. The Bible 
plainly teaches it, and we will go by that. " So they say, 
and so they believe; but the fact is, it is only their interpre- 
tation, their explanation, of the Bible which makes it say so. 
Did you ever know a sect under heaven, even the wildest 
and most fanatical, who were not always on hand ready to 
"prove it all by the Bible" ? Yes; they know that they are 
right beyond a doubt, "because the Bible just says so." 
They will argue you blind, and grow more confident every 
day, and always end by saying, "It is true, not because I 
say so, but because the Bible says so." Meet a Mormon, and 
he has the Bible at his tongue's end. He "proves it all by 
the Bible." So the Shaker, and the Swedenborgian, and 
the Universalist, and the rest of them, ' 'prove it all by the 
Bible." How many persons and sects have arisen at difier- 
ent times with a perfect furor of enthusiasm over some new 
idea besides "the old, old story of Jesus and his love." No 
matter what harm it does to other Christians and to the 
gospel, "the Bible teaches it, and that is enough. When 
we give this up we will give up the Bible, too." So they go 
on till time alone demolishes their theory, and then they do 
indeed give up the Bible and all, while precious souls are 


Sabbatarians began in England in the time of the Refor- 
mation, over three hundred years ago. They had many able 
men, ministers and writers. They published many books, 


discussed the subject widely, and made many converts. 
Here they had a fine field and a fair start. How did Sab- 
bath-keeping succeed? What have they accomplished in 
England ? Three hundred years ought to be long enough 
to tell whether it is a success or not. Let Elder Andrews 
tell the sad story: "In the seventeenth century eleveo 
churches of Sabbatarians flourished in England, while many 
scattered Sabbath-keepers were to be found in various parts 
of the kingdom. Now but three of these churches are in 
existence! And only remnants, even of these, remain!" 
Hist. Sabbath, p. 491. Since he wrote the above, two more 
out of the three, I believe, have expired, and only one little 
company of less than ten members survives! Elder A. sor- 
rowfully asks, '' To what cause shall we assign this painful 
fact? "The cause is evident; God is not in it. It comes to 
naught every time it is tried. Three hundred years hence 
the same mournful requiem will be chanted over the grave 
of Seventh-day Adventism. 

Now look at the history of the Sabbatarian effort in 

In 1664, over 200 years ago, the Seventh-Day Baptists be 
gan teaching that doctrine in America at Newport, R. I. 
The first church was organized Dec. 23, 1671. See * 'Manu- 
al of the Seventh-Day Baptists," pages 39, 40. From that 
time on they industriously taught the observance of the 
seventh day, both in America and other lands, even as far 
as China, by preaching, by tracts, books and periodicals, till 
the religious world is familiar wdth their views. They were 
numerous enough to organize a general conference as early 
as 1802. See Hist. S. D. Bap. Gen. Conf., pages 15, 238, or 
any cyclopedia. They have had academies, colleges, and 
universities; learned men, able writers, and zealous workers. 
What have they accomplished? Almost nothing. They 
now number only about 8,000, and are not holding their 


own, but are losing ground every decade. They can not 
even hold the increase of their children. Largely their 
youth abandon Saturday for Sunday. For convenience 
they mostly colonize together, and so have little intiuence 
on the world. To their praise be it said that they are an ex- 
cellent people, and free from any fanatical or other heret- 
ical notions. Here again the seventh day has had the fair- 
est possible chance of success. Its advocates are intelligent, 
highly educated, respected, and live in this free land and 
age of investigation. Why has it not succeeded ? That it 
has not they themselves must admit. These sober, stubborn 
facts should have weight with us. Sabbatarian brethren, 
stop and weigh these things fairly. "What is the use of 
wasting life contending for what is a practical failure ? 

In 1846, nearly seventy years ago, Seventh-Day Advent- 
ists began teaching the Sabbath. They have practiced it 
zealously, devoted everything to it, poured out treasures 
by the million, and filled the land with their literature. 
What hav^e they accomplished ? They number only about 
100,000 now. Have 4,000 workers in the field and spend 
$2,000,000 yearly yet gain only about 4,000 yearly, or one 
to each worker ! Half of these are from other churches. 
The system lacks vitality and gospel power. 

Contrast with the above the work and success of the First- 
Day Baptists. What a grand work they have done for 
Christ and souls in the last two hundred years. Instead 
numbering 8,000, as the Seventh-Day Baptists do, they 
number 5,000,000. As a body they are just as pious and 
devoted as the Seventh-Day Baptists. Then look at the 
Methodist and other Sunday- keeping churches, and see 
how God has blessed them all. Experience shows that 
keeping the Jewish Sabbath dwarfs, cripples, and unfits a 
church for gospel work. 


If, now, keeping Saturday is so highly pleasing to God, 
why does he not prosper it more? If Sunday observance is 
such a sin in the sight of God, why does he so remarkably 
bless those who persist in it? 


Even the Adventists acknowledge the greatness of Luther 
in piety and a deep knowledge of the word of God. Mrs. 
White says of him: "Zealous, ardent, and devoted, know- 
ing no fear but the fear of God, and acknowledging no foun- 
dation for religious ^aith but the holy scriptures," etc. 
"Angels of heaven x^ere by his side and rays of light from 
the throne A God revealed the treasures of truth to his un- 
derstanding." Great Controversy, pages 94, 97. Good. 
Now hear Luther. Carlstadt, a zealous and learned Sabba- 
tarian, laid his arguments for the seventh day before Luther, 
who examined them. Here is Luther's decision in his own 
(vords: "Indeed, if Carlstadt were to write further about 
fche Sabbath, Sunday would have to give way, and the Sab- 
bath — that is to say, Saturday — must be kept holy; he 
would truly make us Jews in all things, and we should come 
to be circumcised; for that is true and cannot be denied, 
that he who deems it necessary to keep one law of Moses, 
and keeps it as the law of Moses, must deem all necessary, 
and keep them all." Hist. Sabbath, p. 457. 

So, then, the " light" on the Sabbath question was given 
to Luther, and he rejected it, just as the great body of 
Christians do now. The other leaders of the reformation 
were likewise familiar with the arguments for the seventh 
day, but, as Elder Andrews confesses, they "as a body were 
not friendly to such views." Hist. Sabbath, p. 460. 

These facts show how untrue it is to say that people 
have been unacquainted with this Sabbath question be- 



So the great John Milton, author of **Paradise Lost," has 
thorouo;hly discussed the whole Sabbath question, using the 
same arguments as we use now to show the abolition of the 
Jewish Sr.bbath. I quote a few sentences from his " Treat- 
ise on Christian Doctrine," Vol. 1, Book 2, Chap. 7. *'It 
is evident from more than one passage of scripture that the 
original Sabbath is abrogated." ''If, then, the command- 
ment of the Sabbath was given to those alone whom God 
brought out of the land of Egypt and out of the house of 
bondage, it is evidently inapplicable to us as Christians." 
He argues the question this way at considerable length. 


This great divine, the author of " Saints' Rest," " Call to 
the Unconverted," etc., in 1671, wrote his "Divine Appoint- 
ment of the Lord's Day '^ against the Seventh-Day advo- 
cates of his times. Giltillan, says: "Baxter (1671) and 
Bunyan (1685) wrote their interesting defences of the Lord's 
day for relieving the perplexities with which some good peo- 
ple in their time were distressed in consequence of the prose- 
lyting zeal of Saturday Sabbathists. " The Sabbath, p. 144. 
So the Sabbatarians over 200 years ago were giving the same 
"light" and doing the same proselyting work as now. They 
were answered by such men as Baxter, Bunyan, Milton, etc. 

I give a few words from Baxter: "It is also confessed, 
that the universal church from the days of the apostles 
down till now have constantly kept holy the Lord's day in 
the memory of Christ's resurrection, and that as by the will 
of Christ delivered to them by or from the apostles; inso- 
much that I remember not either any orthodox Christian, 
or heretic, that ever opposed, questioned, or scrupled it, 
till of late ages." Part 2, Chap. 18. Of him even Mrs. 
White says: Baxter, a man "of talent, education, and 


deep Christian experience, stood up in valiant defense of the 
faith once delivered to the saints." Great Controversy, 
page 175. Yes: sucb men as these stood up and opposed the 
Jewish Sabbath heresy. 


Hear Mrs. White on Bunyan: "John Bunyan breathed 
the very atmosphere of heaven." Great Controversy, page 
174. Well, now hear Bunyan: "As for the seventh day 
Sabbath, that, as we see, is gone to its grave with the signs 
and shadows of the Old Testament; yea, and it has such a 
dash left upon it by apostolical authority, that it is enough 
to make a Christian fly from it for ever. 2 Cor. 3." "Again 
the apostle smites the teachers of the law upon the mouth, 
saying, 'they understand neither what they say nor whereof 
they affirm.'" Complete Works, page 915. 

If ever a man this side the apostles lived near to God, 
drank into his spirit, and knew the true intent of the Bible, 
that man was Bunyan, author of the immortal work, Pil- 
grim's Progress. He met these Sabbatarians and their work 
in his day. He studied the subject fully and wrote a book 
against them from which I have quoted. 

He regarded them just as they are regarded now, as 
legalists, blind zealots, and disturbers of the church. 

So all this talk that the church did not have the light 
on the Sabbath question till Adventists arose to give it is 
contrary to facts as the above proves. It is simply the 
old arguments of 200 years ago rehashed. 



The foundation of the Sabbatarian error, I believe, is the 
ilea that *>the law," in all the strictness of the old letter, is 
binding on Christians. Hence, their constant theme is the 
kw, law, law. They preach it ten times as much as they 
prvjach Christ. Unfortunately, a false theory of the law 
taught by some other churches has led them into this sad 
error. For twenty-eight years I was held in that * ^bond- 
age." Now that I have found my way out, if I can help 
otherfe^ I shall rejoice. 

The following simple facts with regard to the law helped 
me out of Adventism and I have never known anyone 
to get out of it any other way. I believe it to be the correct 
answer to the Saturday Sabbath error. I write for candid 
readers. They will examine my arguments fairly and allow 
others to do the same, even if they should not agree fully 
with every position. As a result of the present agitation of 
the Sabbath question, we ought to expect a better under- 
standing of the whole subject than heretofore. Forty years 
of investigation and discussion of the question have firmly 
settled me on the following propositions. They are in 
harmony with the best men and theologians of this and past 
ages; hence nothing original on my part 


Antinomiana^ from anti^ against and nomos^ law, against 
law, is a term applied to those who maintain that Christians 
pTe under no obligation to keep the law of God or to do any 



good works. If they commit any kind of sin it will not 
hinder their salvation at all if they only believe in Jesus. 
Salvation is wholly of faith without any regard to a man's 
deeds. See any cyclopedia. This is an abominable doc- 
trine, subversive of the gospel; yet Seventh-Day Adventists 
brand all as Antinomians who do not agree with them as to 
what is the law of God. I am as much opposed to Antino- 
mianism as they. I believe in strict obedience to law, in 
keeping the commandments of God, and in the necessity of 
good works, as strongly as they do. Luther vehemently 
opposed Antinomianism and yet taught the abolition of the 
Mosaic law. It is unfair and unjust for Adventists to call 
people Antinomians who abhor that doctrine. We plead for 
a pure life, good works and obedience to God, as necessary 
to salvation. Hence it is a falsehood and a slander to repre- 
sent us as Antinomians. Men who are conscious of being 
in the right can afford to state the position of their oppo- 
nents fairly. Bunyan, Judson, and a host of such men hav^ 
repudiated the Sabbatarian idea of the law, and yet have 
been holy men. I am not afraid to stand with them. 

Even Elder Waggoner says: "As to whether the Saviour 
abolished the ten commandments and wath them the Sab- 
bath, is a theological question; it is only a matter of Scrip- 
ture interpretation." Replies to Elder Canright, page 164. 
Very well; then men may differ on this question and still be 
honest Christians. I will now lay down a few propositions 
concerning the law which seem to me so plidn and welJ 
supported by the Bible, that all must agree with them. 


The term, "the law,'' when used with the definite article 
and without qualifying words, refers ' 'in nine cases out of 
ten, to the Mosaic law, or to the Pentateuch." Smith's 

THE LAW. 307 

Bible Dictionary, article Law. Largely the Adventists 
use the term, ' 'the law, " for the ten commandments only. 
They hang up a chart of the decalogue and constantly point 
to it as "the law," Matt. 5: 17; ''the law of the Lord," Ps. 
19: 7; "the law of God," Rom. 7: 22. This is their funda- 
mental error on the law. I affirm that "the law" included 
the whole system of law given to the Jews at Sinai, em- 
bracing all those requirements, whether moral, civil or cere- 
monial, decalogue and all. Look at the term "law," in a 
concordance, or in any Bible lexicon, dictionary or cyclope- 
dia. "The law" commonly included the whole of the five 
books of Moses. Even Elder Butler is compelled to make 
this confession: "The term, 'the law,' among the Jews 
generally included the five books of Moses, thus including 
the whole system, moral, ritual, typical and civil." Law in 
Galatians, page 70. That is the truth exactly. Dr. John 
Kitto, in his Cyclopedia of Religious Literature, article 
Law, says: "If, however, the word law alone is used it is 
almost invariably equivalent to the law of Moses." "The 
law is especially embodied in the last four books of the Pen- 
tateuch. " 

Now bear in mind this one simple fact, wherever }'ou find 
the term "the law," and you will have no trouble with Sab- 
batarian arguments on ' 'the law. " 

Take a few examples of the use of the term "the law." 
1 Cor. 14: 34. Women "are commanded to be under obe- 
dience, as also saith the law. " Where does the law say this ? 
Gen. 3: KG. So Genesis is in the law. Again: "The law 
had said, Thou shalt not covet." Rom. 7: 7. Where? 
Ex. 20: 17. So Exodus is in the law. Once more: "Master, 
which is the great commandment in the law?" Matt. 22: 
36. Jesus then makes two quotations from the law; first, 
* 'Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart. " This is taken 
from Deut. 6: 5. So Deuteronomy is in the law. Second, 


"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." This is from 
Lev. 19: 18. So Leviticus is a part of the law. And this: 
"Have ye not read in the law, how that on the Sabbath days 
the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blame- 
less?" Matt. 12: 5. It is from Num. 28: 9. These then, 
embrace all the five books of Moses as ^Hhe law^ Observe 
a little where the law is spoken of and you will soon see that 
it refers indiscriminately to each and all of the books of 
Moses as * 'the law." Of course any verse in any of these 
books is quoted as "the law," because it is a part of the law. 
So the ten commandments are quoted as the law because 
they are a part of the law. 

Again, "the law" embraces all parts of the law, moral, 
civil or ceremonial. Thus the ceremonial precepts: "The 
parents brought in the child Jesus to do for him after the 
custom of the law." Luke 2: 27. That is, to offer a sacri- 
fice. Verse 24. Moral precepts: "The law is not made for 
a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the 
ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for mur- 
derers." 1 Tim. 1: 9. This is the decalogue. Civil pre- 
cepts: "Commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law ?" 
Acts 23: 3. Notice that every time it is simply the law. 
"Gamaliel, a doctor of the law." Acts 6: 34. Of what law ? 
Was he simply a doctor of some part of the law, as the 
moral, or civil, or ceremonial precepts ? Every intelligent 
man knows that "the law," of which he was doctor or teacher, 
was the whole Pentateuch, decalogue included. The law, 
then, is the whole Jewish law, in all its parts. This one 
point, clearly settled, destroys nine-tenths of all the Seventh- 
Day Adventist argument for the Jewish Sabbath. 


Proposition 2. There was no such thing as two separate 
la/ws given to the Jews, To sustain their doctrine Sab- 

THE LAW- 309 

batarians have invented a theory of two laws given at 
Sinai; one the moral law, the other the ceremonial. 

Adventists attach the utmost importance to their theory 
of two laws as well they may; for if this is wrong their cause 
is lost. Elder U. Smith says: ''No question, therefore, 
more vital to the interest of Sabbath-keepers can be pro- 
posed." Synopsis of Present Truth, page 258. But that 
they are wrong on this vital question is very easily 

1. ^'' Moral Za?/j," ^'-ceremonial law.'''^ Adventists use 
these tw^o terms as freely as though the Bible was full of 
them; yet, strange to say, the scriptures make no such dis- 
tinctions, never speak of one law as "moraF' and of another 
as ''ceremonial." Adventists severely criticise those who 
happen to use an unscriptural word or phrase; yet they 
themselves do the very thing commonly, as in this case. It 
would be amusing to hear one of them try to preach on the 
"two laws" and confine himself to Bible language! He could 
not possibly do it. If there were two distinct laws given to 
Israel, so opposite in their nature, it is strange that there is 
no record of it, no reference to it in the Bible. If one was 
abolished and the other was not, strange that Paul should 
not make the distinction when he has so much to say about 
the law. Why did he not say, "we establish the moral law" ? 
or, "the ceremonial law was our schoolmaster" ? No, he just 
says ' 'the law" and leaves it there. He seems not to have 
been quite as clear on that point as Adventists are! On this 
point Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, Article Law, 
says: "Neither Christ nor the apostles ever distinguished 
between the moral, the ceremonial, and the civil law, when 
they speak of its establishment or its abolition." 

2. Tko two lawG contrasted. Adventists have drawn up 
a long hst of things which they claim are true of the 
"moral" law and an opposite list which can apply only 


to the * 'ceremonial" law. These two they contrast and 
make out two laws. Thus Elder Smith: "Moral law:" — 
**Was spoken from Sinai by the voice of God and twice 
written upon tables of stone by his own finger." *'Was 
deposited in the golden ark." "Related only to moral 
duties." Synopsis of Present Truth, page 266. Of 
course this was just the ten commandments, nothing more, 
nothing less. So here we have their "moral law." Now 
here is the other one: "The ceremonial law:" — "Was com- 
municated to Moses privately and was by Moses written 
with a pen in a book. Deut. 31: 9." *'Was put into a 
receptacle by the side of the ark. Deut. 31: 26." "Was 
wholly ceremonial." Same page. 

Hence everything not found in the decalogue belongs to 
the ceremonial law and everything Moses himself wrote in 
the book of the law placed in the side of the ark is "wholly 
ceremonial." Deut. 31: 26, reads: "Take this book of the 
law and put it in the side of the ark." The decalogue was 
in the ark, the book of the law was by the side of the ark. 
We enquire, then, how much "the book of the law" con- 
tained. The answer is easy: it contained all the five books 
of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and 
Deuteronomy. Thus 2 Kings 14: 6, says it "is written in 
the book of the law of Moses," and then quotes Deut 24: 
16, as that book of the law. 2 Chron. 35: 12, says: "It is 
written in the book of Moses," and refers to Lev. 3: 3. Ezra 
6: 18, says: "It is written in the book of Moses," and 
refers to Num. 3: 6. Joshua 8: 31 quotes Ex. 20: 25, as 
that which *'is written in the book of the law." 1 Cor. 14: 
34 refers to Gen. 3: 16, as *'the law." Dr. Scott on Deut. 
31: 26, says: "This [book] appears to have been a correct 
and authentic copy of the five books of Moses." 

So what they call the ceremonial law contains scores of 
precepts as purely moral as any in the decalogue. Read 

THE LAW. 311 

these: "Thou shalt not vex a stranger." "Ye shall not 
afflict any widow or fatherless child." Ex. 22: 21, 22. 
"Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil." Ex. 23: 
2. "Ye shall be holy." "Thou shalt not go up and down as 
a tale bearer among thy people." "Thou shalt not avenge, 
nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but 
thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Lev. 19: 2, 16,18. 
"Thou shalt not respect persons." "Thou shalt be perfect." 
Deut. 16: 19, 18, 13. Are these precepts, and scores like 
them, to be classed as ceremonial because God did not write 
them on a stone but gave them to Moses to write in a 
book? Surely not. Then the nature of a 2^recept was not 
determined by the way it was given. God gave them all 
at different times as it pleased him. 

As we have seen, "the law" embraces the "whole law." 
Gal. 5: 3. Of course, in that law, some precepts refer to 
moral duties, other to civil, and others to ceremonial, but all 
are only different parts of the same law, called, as a whole, 
"the law." Thus Jesus quotes from Lev. 19, as "the law." 
See Matt. 22: 36-40. Now read the whole chapter. Lev. 19, 
and you find moral, civil and ceremonial precepts all mingled 
together, and often in the same verse. Adventists, to sus- 
tain their theorj-, have to go through this chapter, as they 
do through the w^hole Bible, and cut and carve, and split 
hairs, and label one sentence "the moral law," another "the 
ceremonial law," etc. This is what is properly termed "the 
scrapping system. " It does great violence to the Scriptures, 
wresting them out of their evident meaning. 

In no place can they find their ceremonial law given by 
itself. The}^ have to pick it out here and there in scraps. 
The "book of the law," which was placed in the side of the 
ark, Deut. 31: 24-26, is pointed to as the ceremonial law 
But this "book of the law," as we see, embraced the whole 
five books of Moses. 


It contains all of the ten commandments word for word 
twice repeated. Ex. 20 and Deut. 5. Elder G. I. Butler him- 
self makes this confession: "The *book of the law,' which 
was placed in the side of the ark, or at the side of it, con- 
tained both the moral and ceremonial laws. " Law in Gala- 
tians, p. 39. That drops the bottom out of the theory that 
the moral law was " in the ark, and the ceremonial law in 
the side of the ark," as they usually claim. So, on close 
examination, every text on which they rely for two laws will 
fail them. That the "book of the law" did contain moral 
precepts is settled by Gal. 3: 10. "It is written, cursed is 
every one that continueth not in all things which are written 
in the book of the law to do them. " Where in the book of 
the law is this written? In Deut. 27: 26. Turning there 
we have a curse against images, verse 15, disobedience to 
parents, verse 16, adultery, verse 20; murder, verse 24; bri- 
bery, verse 25; then comes the verse quoted as "the book of 
the law. " So if the decalogue contains moral law, then the 
book did too. This shows the utter fallacy of their theory 
of two laws. 

The following passage aione overturns the two law theory 
of Adventists: "Master, which is the great commandment 
in the law? Jesus said unto him, thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. 
And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the 
law and the prophets." Matt. 22: 36-40. 

1. These two great commandments were " in the law." 
2. But neither of them is found in the decalogue. 3. Both 
of them are in what Adventists call the ceremonial law. 4. 
Neither of them was spoken by God, nor written by him, 
nor engraved on stones, nor put into the ark. Both were 
given by God to Moses privately and he wrote them with a 

THE LAW. 313 

pen in the book of the law which was placed in the side of 
the ark. And yet these two precepts are the greatest of all. 
Jesus said of the first one that it is ''the first of all the com- 
mandments." Of the two he said, "There is none other 
commandments greater than these." Mark 12: 29, 31. And 
on these two hang ail the law. So, then, the greatest com- 
mandment are in the book of the law, not on the tables of 
stone. How utterly this demolishes their two law argument. 
It shows that the mere fact that the ten commandments were 
spoken by God, written on stone, and placed in the ark, 
is no proof that they were superior to those given through 
Moses in the book of the law. 

We will examine a few more of their contrasts of the two 
Jaws as they arrange them. Thus: 

"1. Moral: Existed in Eden before the fall. Ceremonial: 
Was given after the fall. 

2. Moral: Was perfect. Ps. 19: 7. Ceremonial: Made 
nothing perfect. Heb. 7:19. 

3. Moral: Contains the whole duty of man. Eccl. 12:13. 
Ceremonial 'Stood only in meats and drinks, and divers 
washings, and carnal ordinances.' Heb. 9: 10." 

1 Where do they read that the decalogue was given in 
Eden? Nowhere. This they assume not only without proof, 
but against the plain record of Ex. 19 and 20 that it was 
given at Sinai. So their very first comparison is a failure. 

2. The law is perfect, Ps. 19: 7, and again, the law made 
nothing perfect. Heb. 7: 19. This they regard as one of 
their clearest proofs of the two laws. But where is the 
proof ? Does it follow that if the law is perfect it will or 
can make sinners perfect ? If it could, then, as Paul says, 
"righteousness should be by the law," Gal. 3: 21, and 
" then Christ is dead in vain." Gal. 2: 21. The law could 
be perfect and yet fail to make anybody perfect. So there 
is no proof of two laws here after all. 


3. Eccl. 12: 13 is quoted as referring to the ten com^ 
mandments alone and then it is asserted that these contain 
every duty of man. Both statements are fallacious. There 
are scores of duties we owe to God and men not even 
hinted at in the decalogue. Then there is not a particle of 
evidence that Eccl. 12: 13 refers alone to the decalogue. It 
manifestly embraces all God's commandments on all subjects. 
Look at the second quotation, Heb. 9: 10. It does not refer 
to any law whatever but is speaking of the service of the 
priests in the temple, which service ' ' stood only in meats, 
drinks," etc. Read it. Thus their '^ two laws " are 
made out: 1. By pure assumptions. 2. By misapplications 
of scripture. 3. By detached phrases here and there taken 
out of their proper connection. So I could go through 
their whole list and show that it proves no such contrast as 
they claim. 

But they assert that such opposite things are said of "the 
law," that it cannot be the same law all the time. This 
method of proving two laws by contrasting particular 
expressions about the law when spoken of from different 
standpoints, would make bad work with the Bible if urged 
on other subjects. Paul said he was ''a Jew," Acts 21: 39, 
and again that he was *'a Roman," Acts 22: 25; two Pauls. 
So Christ is ''a Lion " and " a Lamb," Rev. 5: 5, 6. " The 
everlasting Father, "Jsa. 9: 6, and born of awoman,Luke,2:T; 
Prince of Life, Acts, 3: 15, yet died through weakness, 2 
Cor. 13: 4; a child, Isa. 9: 6 ; and yet God, Heb. 1: 1-8— 
two Christs. It would be much harder to reconcile the ap- 
parently opposite things said of Christ, than it would be 
the different things said about the law. There were 
different sides to Christ's nature, yet he was but one person. 
So there were different sides to the law, but it was only one 
law for all that. Viewed in the light of its ultimate design, 
viz.: to prepare the way for Christ, Rom. 10: 4; Gal. 3; 23- 

THE LAW. 316 

25, in its spirit, Rom. 7: 6; in its righteousness, Rom. 8: 3, 
4; it was ^'holy and just and good," Rom. 7: 12. But viewed 
from the side of its mere letter, Rom. 2:29; 7:6 ; 2 Cor. 3:6,7; 
its numerous rites, ceremonies, penalties and rigorous exact- 
ions, it was *' the ministration of death," 2 Cor. 3: 7; and a 
"yoke of bondage," Gal. 5: 1-3; Acts 15: 1-10. This is the 
true explanation of their ''two laws." 

Further, it is not true that there was nothing ceremonial 
in the decaloojue. The weekly Sabbath was the chief cere- 
monial of all the Jewish worship. See this proved in the 
first part of chapter nine. Also see chapter eighteen on the 
decalogue. In Chapter XXI I have examined every text 
they use on the two laws. 

Proposition 3. The ten commandments alone a/re never 
called ^Hhe law of the Lord''^ nor the ''Haw of God^ Sab- 
batarians constantly use these two terms, applying them to 
the decalogue alone. With them 'Hhe law of God" and *'the 
law of the Lord" is just the decalogue and nothing more. 
They are the only ones who keep God's law , as all others 
break the Sabbath, the seventh day. But now notice this fact 
which I know to be the truth, after a most thorough exam- 
ination. The word law occurs in the Bible over 400 times, 
yet in not one single instance is the decalogue as a whole 
and alone called "the law." It is never in a single instance 
called 'Hhe law of the Lord," or ''the law of God." Of 
course the ten commandments are a part of the law of God, 
but only a part, not the whole. Examine a few texts: Luke 
2: 22. "The days of her purification according to the law 
of Moses;" verse 23, "It is written in the law of the Lord, 
every male that openeth the womb;" verse 24, It is "said in 
the law of the Lord, a pair of turtle doves;" verse 27, "To 
do for him after the custom of the law." Here "the law," 
"the law of the Lord," and "the law of Moses," all mean 
the same thing, viz: the law touching the birth of a sod. 


Again, sacrifices, offerings, Sabbaths, new moons and feast* 
are all required "in the law of the Lord." Thus: *'He 
appointed also the king's portion of his substance for the 
burnt offerings, to-wit, for the morning and evening burnt 
offerings, and the burnt offerings for the Sabbaths, and for 
the new moons and for the set feasts, as it is written in the 
laio of the Lord.'''' 2 Chron. 31: 3. Scores of texts like 
these could be quoted, showing that "the law of the Lord" 
includes sacrifices, circumcision, feast days and all the Jew- 
ish law. So "the law of God" is not simply the decalogue, 
but the whole law of Moses. Read Neh. 8: 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 
14, 18. "The book of the law of Moses," "the law," "the 
book of the law," "they read in the book of the law of 
God," "the law which the Lord commanded by Moses," 
"the book of the law of God." The law of God, then, in- 
cludes the whole law of Moses. 

No Sabbatarian, therefore, keeps "the law," "the law of 
God," or "the law of the Lord," for if he did he would 
offer sacrifices, be circumcised, and live exactly as the Jews 
did. So all their talk about "keeping the law" amounts to 
nothing, for none of them do it. Moreover in their attempt 
to keep a part of that law they thereby bring themselves un- 
der obligation to "keep the whole law," as Paul argues in 
Gal. 5: 3. But as none of them keep the whole law, they 
bring upon themselves the curse of the law, by constantly 
violating one part while attempting to keep another. This 
is the very point which Paul made against Judaizing legal- 
ists of his dayo "For as many as are of the works of the 
law are under the curse: For it is written, cursed is every 
one that continueth not in all things which are written in the 
book of the law to them." Gal. 3: 10. That is, the person 
who keeps one precept of the law just because the law says 
so, thereby acknowledges that the law is binding on him. 
Then if he neglects some other part of the law, he thereby 

THE LAW. 317 

becomes a transgressor of the very law he professes to keep. 
This is exactly what Sabbatarians do. They keep the Sab- 
bath because the law says so and thereby become "debtors to 
do the whole law." GaL 5: 3. Then they neglect many 
things in the same law and so are mider the condemna- 
tion of the law. Gal. 3: 10. But Christians do this 
or that, not because the IoajO says so, but because so says the 
New Testament. 

Proposition 4. ''The law^'' was given by Moses and the 
^ ^''Law of Moses''^ includes the decalogue. Not that Moses 
was the author of it, but it was through him God gave 
it to Israel. This is stated so distinctly and so many times 
that it is useless to deny it. Thus: "For the law was given 
by Moses," John 1: 17. "Did not Moses give you the law ?" 
John 7: 19. "The law which the Lord had commanded by 
Moses," Neh. 8: 14. "God's law which w^as given by 
Moses," Neh. 10: 29. This includes the decalogue. "Moses 
said. Honor thy father and thy mother," Mark 7: 10. This 
is the fifth commandment. Again: "Did not Moses give 
you the law and yet none of you keepeth the law ? Why 
go ye about to kill me ?" John 7: 17. The law against kill- 
ing is here called the law of Moses. 

In Heb. 10: 28, it is said that "he that despised Moses' law 
died without mercy under two or three witnesses. " Persons 
were put to death for violating the decalogue. See Deut. 
17: 6. They were put to death for breaking the Sabbath, 
Ex. 31 : 14, blasphemy, theft, and the like. Hence the de- 
calogue is included in the "law of Moses." But in 
verse 24 they said ye must " keep the law." So in one 
verse it is " the law of Moses " and in another verse it is 
simply " the law " : Hence 'there is no difference between 
" the law " and " the law of Moses." 

In Josh. 8 : 30, 31, we read : " Then Joshua built an 


altar unto the Lord God of Israel in mount Ebal, as 
Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children oi 
Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an 
altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any 
iron„" It says that this about the altar was written in the 
"book of the law of Moses." Now turn to Ex. 20: 25, the 
very chapter where the decalogue is found, and there you 
have the text referred to. "And if thou wilt make me an 
altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone; for if 
thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou has polluted it." This 
proves beyond denial that the ten commandments are in the 
law of Moses. 

Proposition 5. ''''The lauP'' was not given till the time of 
Moses and Sinai. The texts above quoted prove this. 
Thus: "The law was given by Moses." John 1: 17. "Did 
not Moses give you the law?" John 7: 19. "For until the 
law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there 
is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to 
Moses." Rom. 5: 13-14. The entrance of the law is here 
located at Moses. Again it is located under the Levitical 
priesthood. "If therefore perfection were by the Levitical 
priesthood, for under it the people received the law." Heb. 
7: 11. So the giving of the law is located "430 years after 
the covenant with Abraham." "And this I say, that the cov- 
enant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot dis- 
annul." Gal. 3: 17. This bring us to the very year the 
Jews came out of Egypt and arrived at Sinai. "And it 
came to pass at the end of 430 years, even the self-same day 
it came to pass, that all of the hosts of the Lord went out 
from the land of Egypt." Ex. 12: 41. Beyond dispute, 
then, what the Bible calls "the law" was not given till 
Moses, 2,500 years after Adam, or nearly half the history of 
the \porld. 

THE LAW. 319 

Proposition 6. The Ioajo is no where found till Moses. 
No copy of the law nor any reference to it can be found till 
Moses. Of course God's great moral and spiritual law, con- 
demning every sin and requiring every righteous act — that 
existed from Adam, nay, from eternity. But what in all 
the Jewish Scriptures is known as "the law," as drawn out 
in a code on Sinai, whether in a book or on the tables of 
stone, this certainly did not exist till Moses. The whole 
dispute between Paul and the Judaizers of his day was over 
this law. See Romans, Galatians and Acts 15 and 21. The 
question was whether ' 'the law, " that which was written in 
"the book of the law," Gal. 3: 10, and "engraved in 
stones," 2 Cor. 3: 7, was to be kept under the gospel. Paul 
said, No; they said, Yes. Sabbatarians now stick for the law 
of Sinai as did the Judaizers of old. To say that i\iQ prin- 
ciples of the law existed before Sinai, does not prove that 
the law existed. These principles could have been taught 
to Adam and his descendants in a different form from the 
law as afterwards given at Sinai. But where do you find 
the law or even one of the ten commandments, as worded on 
Sinai, before that time ? Nowhere. 

The various principles and precepts, moral, ceremomai, 
and typical, which had previously been taught in different 
ways, were now gathered into one code and worded so as to 
adapt them, for the time being, to the circumstances of the 
Jewish nation. As thus worded, certainly this law had 
never been given before. 

Proposition 7. Their fathers did not have the deca- 
logue as worded on the tables. This Moses directly states. 
Deut. 4: 12, 13, says God spoke to them from heaven, and 
declared to them ' 'his covenant," ^ 'even ten commandments, " 
Chap. 6: 2, 3, says: "The Lord our God made a covenant 
with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant with 
^ur fathers, but with us." I'hen he repeats the ten com- 


mandments as spoken from heaven. Verses 4-22. That 
the main principles and requirements of this code were 
taught to the fathers in some way no one can doubt; but 
that the fathers had the law as worded and arranged at Sinai 
is directly denied by Moses, as above. 

Proposition 8. The law was given only to the Jews. 
This is so manifest in every item of the law, that it needs no 
argument to prove it. Moses says, Deut. 4: 8, that no 
nation has a law so good " as all this law which I set before 
you this day. " Then he names the ten commandments as a 
part of it. Verses 10-13. *'This is the law which Moses 
set before the children of Israel." Verse 44. Before whom? 
Israel, not the Gentiles. So again, Chap. 5: 1. '^Hear, O 
Israel, the statutes and judgments which I speak in your 
ears." Then follows the decalogue. So it is a hundred 
times over all through the law. It is addressed to the Jews 
and to them only. The very wording of the law shows it 
was designed for them only. The decalogue is introduced 
thus: "I am the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of 
the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Ex. 20:2. 
To whom is that applicable? Only to the Jewish nation. 
Neither angels, Adam, nor Gentile Christians were ever in 
Egyptian bondage. Then this law is not addressed to 
them. To whom was the law given. Let Paul answer. 
"Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, 
and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law." 
Kom. 9: 4. It was given to Israel. "Remember ye the law 
of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Ho- 
reb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments." Mala- 
chi4:4. The law was "/br all Israel^^^ and them only. 

All these things show that this was a national law worded 
to fit the condition of the Jews at the time. 

Proposition 9. The Gentiles did not hwve the law. 
This has been proved already; but Paul directly says so. 

THE LAW. 321 

Rom. 2: 14. *'For when the Gentiles, which have not the 
law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these hav- 
ing not the law, are a law unto themselves." This is too 
plain to need arguing. The Gentiles did not have the law. 
Paul says so directly and that ought to settle it, and does. 
To understand and obey the great moral principles of that 
law is one thing; to be under the letter, the exact wording 
of the law as given in detail on Sinai, is quite another, as 
we will see further on. 

Proposition 10. The rewards and penalties of the law 
were all temporal. There are no promises of future rewards, 
nor threatenings of future punishments in all the Mosaic 
law. The learned Bishop Warburton has fully demonstrated 
this in his ' 'Divine Legation of Moses." Every careful 
student of that law must be aw^are of this feature of it. The 
reason is e\ddent: it was a national, temporal law, given for 
a national, temporal purpose. As a sample of all, see Deut. 
28: 1-19. If they keep the law, they shall be blessed in 
children, in goods, in cattle, in health, etc. If they disobey, 
they shall be cursed in all these. Stoning to death was the 
penalty for theft, murder, etc. Hence that was ' 'the minis- 
tration of death written and engraved in stones," 2 Cor. 3;7, 
and "is done away," verse 11. 

Paul states that the promise of Christ and the future in- 
heritance was made to Abraham four hundred and thirty 
years before the law w^as given. From this he argues, and 
forcibly, too, that the keeping of that law was not necessary 
in order to obtain Christ and the inheritance. Verses 16-18. 
"Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. 
He saith not, and to seeds, as of many; but as of one, 
and to thy seed, which is Christ. And this I say, that the 
covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, 
which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot dis- 
annul, that it should make the promise of none eflect. For 


if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: 
but God gave i^ to Abraham by promise." So to the Ro< 
mans he wrote: "For the promise, that he should be the 
heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, 
through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. 
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, 
and the promise made of none effect." Rom. 4: 13, 14. 

This plainly teaches that the law was not given with ref- 
erence to the future inheritance. Certainly Abraham did 
not keep a law which was not given till hundreds of years 
after he died. But Abraham is the father of all the faithful, 
and not simply of those who were "of the law." Rom. 
4: 13-16. This point alone ought to open the eyes of those 
who contend so earnestly for the keeping of that law as nec- 
essary to salvation. We are the children of Abraham, Gal. 
3: 29, and "walk in the steps of our father Abraham," who 
was never under the law. Rom, 4: 12-16. We are under 
the covenant of promise made to Abraham 430 years before 
the law, Gal. 2: 15-19, and not under the covenant of law 
from Sinai, which is bondage. Gal. 4: 21-26. 

Proposition 11. God'^s eternal law of righteousness ex^ 
isted hefore the law of Sinai was given. This proposition 
is self-evident. Surely God had a law by which to govern 
his creatures, both angels and men, long before Sinai. But 
" the law," as worded in the decalogue and in " the book of 
the law," was not given till Moses, 2,500 years after creation. 
Hence moral obligation did not begin with that law, nor 
would it cease if that law was abolished. "All unrighteous- 
ness is sin." 1 John 5: 17. And " sin is the transgression 
of the law." Chap. 3: 4. This text is used by Sabbatarians 
to prove that every possible sin is always a violation of the 
ten commandments. But, 1. "The law" is the whole Mo- 
saic law, not merely the decalogue. 2. A correct transla- 
tion entirely spoils this text for them. The word law is not 

THE LAW. 323 

m the text in the original. The revised version gives it cor- 
rectly. '* Sin is lawlessness." This is the true meaning of 
the text. Sin is lawlessness, a disregard for some law, but 
not necessarily always the same law. Thus: ^'The angels 
sinned." 2 Pet. 2: 4. But they did not violate the law of 
Sinai, for it was not given till thousands of years after they 
fell, and they were not under that law any way. 

Adam * 'sinned" long before that law was given. So Paul 
says, Rom. 5: 12-14. Cain sinned, Gen. 4: 7. The Sodom- 
ites were ''sinners," Gen. 13: 13, and vexed Lot with their 
"unlawful deeds," 2 Pet. 2: 8. Surely none of these vio- 
lated "the law," which was not given till Moses, hundreds of 
years afterwards. To say that they must have violated the 
principles of that law is not to the point. When the Jews 
killed Stephen, Acts 7: 59, they violated the principles of 
the law of Michigan, which forbids murder; but did they 
violate the "law of Michigan"? No; for it was not given 
>'or 1800 years after. And they were not under it any way. 
So neither the angels, nor Adam, nor the Sodomites could 
have transgressed the law of Sinai, for it was not yet given. 
So Abraham kept God's laws. Gen. 26: 5, but surely not 
"the law which was four hundred and thirty years after,". 
Gal. 3: 17. All this clearly shows that God had a law be- 
fore the code of Sinai was given. 

Jesus, under the gospel 1500 years later, in naming the 
commandments, gives them neither in the same words nor 
in the same order as found in the decalogue. Further, he 
mingles with them some precepts from the book of the law 
as of equal importance with the ten commandments. Thus: 
Do not commit adultery, do not kill, do not steal, do not 
bear false witness, defraud not, honor thy father and mother. 
Mark 10: 19. This shows that the mere form and order of 
the commandments is of no consequence as long as the 
idea is given. So the two editions of the decalogue m 


Ex. 20 and Deut. 5 vary much in the wording; yet one is as 
good as the other. This shows that the exact wording is not 

In whatever form or manner God chose to communicate 
his will to men, this would be "his commandments, his stat- 
utes, and his laws." Gen. 26: 5. Paul says: "God, who 
at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past 
unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days 
spoken unto us by his Son." Heb. 1: 1, 2. 

A disregard for his revealed will would be lawlessness — 
sin. But to claim that God gave the patriarchs his law in 
the exact form and words of the ten commandments is a 
proofless assumption, contrary to reason and all the facts iv 
the case. 

Proposition 12. This original law is superior to th6 
law of Sinai. When asked "Which is the great command- 
ment in the law?" Jesus said: "Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with 
all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. 
And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor 
as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law 
and the prophets." Matt. 22: 37-40, Neither of these is 
in the decalogue; but that law hangs on this higher law, and 
so is inferior to it. These principles, clad in the panoply of 
eternal immutability, lay back of the Mosaic law and ex- 
isted with it throughout that dispensation as they had existed 
before and exist now. 

In its very nature this great law of supreme love to God, 
and equal love to fellow creatures, must be as eternal and 
everlasting as God himself. This law governs angels — gov- 
erned Adam, the patriarchs, the pious Jews, while under "the 
law," and Gentile Christians now. It is applicable to 
all God's creatures, in all ages and all worlds. Idolatry, 
murder, theft, selfishness and "all unrighteousness," 1 John 

THE LAW. 325 

6: 17, are and always were violations of this supreme law of 
God. This great law might be worded in difierent ways at 
different times and yet the same essential idea be preserved. 
Thus Jesus stated the second great commandment in another 
form. ' 'Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men 
should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for tliis is the law 
and the prophets." Matt. 7: 12. The idea is the same as 
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." The exact words 
or form in which this law is stated is not material so long as 
the idea is made plain. Evidently this supreme law must 
have been made known to Adam and to the patriarchs but 
in just what form we are not told. To say that it was in the 
exact words of the decalogue is to affirm what can in no 
wise be proved. 

Proposition 13. The Mosaic law was founded upon the 
higher and original law. Jesus directly affirms this, Matt. 
22: 40. "On these two commandments hangs all the law." 
The principles of this great law were interwoven all through 
the law of Sinai, being the life, "the spirit," or " the right- 
eousness" of "the law." Rom. 2: 26-29; 8: 4. As an ex- 
ample, examine Lev. 19. Here you have the second great 
commandment, verse 18, and the principles of every one of 
the ten commandments. Thus: 1st commandment, verse 32; 
2nd, verse 4; 3d, verse 12; 4th, verse 30; 5th, verse 3; 6th, 
verse 17; 7th, verse 29; 8th, verse 13; 9th, verse 11; 10th, 
verse 35. Mingled among these are commandments about 
sacrifices, verse 5; harvest, verse 9; clothing, verse 19; 
priests, verse 22; first fruits, verse 23; wizards, verse 31; 
Gentiles, verse 34, etc. All these are founded upon this 
higher law and can be changed to fit circumstances without 
affecting the supreme law, which is ever the same. 

The particular wording of the law as adapted to the Jew- 
ish age was "the letter" or " form " of the law for the time 
being. While the spirit of the law can never change, the 


letter of it must change to fit the changing circumstances of 
God's people. If a Jew loved God with all his heart, he 
would have circumcised his sons, offered burnt sacrifices, 
paid tithes, kept the passover, the new moons, the Sabbath, 
and attended the temple worship, for this was ^ ' the law of 
the Lord. " 2 Chron. 31:3; Luke 2 : 22-27. But if a Chris- 
tian loves God he will be baptized, Acts 2: 38, take the 
Lord's supper, 1 Cor. 11: 24, attend church, Heb. 10: 25, 
keep "the Lord's day," Rev. 1:10, and do many things very 
different from a Jew. Hence 'Hhere is made of necessity a 
change also of the law." Heb. 7: 12. This is both Bible 
and common sense. Those who make the mere letter of the 
Jewish law an iron rule, and contend for the exact wording 
under all circumstances, and in all ages, miss the spirit of 
the gospel, and are in bondage to a system out of date. Gal. 
3: 19-25; 4: 21-25; 5: 1-3, 13, 14; 2 Cor. 3: 3-15. 

Proposition 14. ^'-The law''^ of Sinai was given to 
restrain criminals who would only obey God through fear. 
Consider this proposition well. A failure to understand this 
simple fact is the cause of all the blunders of Sabbatarians 
and legalists in their extravagant and unscriptural praises 
of "the ministration of death written and engraven in 
stones." 2 Cor. 3: 7. On this point hear Paul state why that 
law was made and notice that it is of the moral precepts of 
the law that he speaks. "Knowing this, that the law is not 
made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobe- 
dient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and pro- 
fane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for 
manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile them- 
selves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured 
persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to 
sound doctrine." 1 Tim. 1: 9, 10. There can be no doubt 
that he refers to the code of Sinai, that which prohibited 
murder, theft, etc. This law he says was not made for a 

THE LAW. 327 

righteous man but for the lawless. Of this law in another 
place Paul says: ''Wherefore then serveth the law? It was 
added because of transgressions." Gal. 3: 19. Again, 
"The law entered that the offense might abound. " Rom. 5: 
20, and, "until the law sin was in the world," verse 13. 
Hence it is manifest that sin, offense and transgression ex- 
isted before "the law" was given, and that it was given to 
prohibit already existing crimes. Evidently God put the 
race on trial from Adam to Moses under the same eternal 
law of right and love which governed the angels and holy 
men. But mankind failed shamefully. They did not live 
by that rule. They became lawless. Disregard of God and 
open violence towards men were increasing, till life and 
property were insecure. Then God selected one nation, the 
Hebrews, and gave up the rest to their own ways. Rom. 
1: 20-28. 

Up to this time God's people had not been a nation by 
themselves but had dwelt among other nations and had been 
subject to their civil laws which prohibited open violence and 
protected life and property. But as soon as they became a 
nation by themselves, it became absolutely necessary to have 
a national law of their own which would prohibit and pun- 
ish open crime, such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. Life 
and property would not have been secure without this, be- 
cause many among them were wicked, lawless men, "stiff- 
necked and rebellious." If all had been righteous, if all 
had loved God and their neighbors, there would have been 
no need of a prohibitory law with a death penalty. We can 
readily see the reason why Paul says "the law was not 
made for a righteous man, but for the lawless." These law- 
less ones would have robbed and murdered the righteous 
ones had there been no national, temporal law to protect 
them, for these wicked men would have cared little about 
God's higher law, which pertains to the future judgment 


But as the Jewish government was a theocracy, one in which 
God himself was ruler, the law required and regulated service 
to him as well as duties among themselves. 

Hence to this nation God gave the law of Sinai. Ex. 2C.' 
2. Would it have been given if men had obeyed God with- 
out? Paul has settled that point. ''The law is not made 
for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient." 
1 Tim. 1: 9. Then the law was not made till man had sin- 
ned, Rom. 5: 13, offended, verse 20, transgressed, Gal. 3: 
19, and became lawless. This then is not God's original law 
by which he prefers to govern men. It was a law largely of 
prohibitions, threats, pains and penalties. Its object was to 
restrain open crime, protect men in their natural rights and 
preserve the knowledge of God in the earth till Christ 
should come. Gal. 3: 19-25. In order to keep that nation 
separate from all others, many burdensome rites were in- 
corporated into the law which made it a yoke of bondage. 
Acts 15: 10; Gal. 5: 1, 3. 

When Christ came, and the Jewish nation was rejected 
and dispersed, and their national law overthrown, and the 
gospel went to all nations, that law had served its purpose, 
and so passed away as a system. Matt. 5: 17-18; Rom. 10: 
4; Gal. 3: 21; Heb. 7: 12-19. Now Christians are not un- 
der the Aaronic priesthood, nor the Jewish law. Heb. 7: 
11, 12; but are under the priesthood of Melchisedec, verses 
14-19, as was Abraham our father. Gen. 14: 18-20, who 
never had "the law" of Sinai, Gal. 3: 17, but walked by the 
higher law which governs angels and holy men. Gen. 26: 
5. The Jewish law being removed, we now come under the 
same law by which Enoch and Abraham "walked with 
God." The sermon on the mount is a beautiful elucidation 
of that law, the rule by which all Christians should live, 
and by which all sinners will be judged at the judgment. 

Now, as in the days before Moses, God's people are not a 

THE LAW. 329 

nation by themselves, but are scattered among all nations 
where they are governed and protected by the civil law of 
those nations. Hence the New Testament provides no civil 
law for the government of Christians, no temporal penal- 
ties for criminals. It would be directly contrary to the na- 
ture of the gospel to do either. All this is left to the rulers 
of nations wherever Christians happen to be. Open crim- 
inals, who will not obey from principle, the higher law, are 
now turned over to the civil maonstrate. Paul makes this 
matter very plain and puts the question beyond dispute. 
Thus: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. 
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are 
ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, 
resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall 
receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a 
terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou, then, not be 
afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt 
have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee 
for good. But if , thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he 
beareth not the sword in vain ; for he is the minister of God. 
a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, 
but also for concience' sake. For, for this cause pay ye 
tribute also; for they are God's ministers, attending continu- 
ally upon this very thing." Rom. 13: 1-6. 

There is where you find prohibitory law for "the law- 
less;" that is, in the civil law of the land where they live. 
This punishes their crime against society. Their oflfenses 
against God's great law will be recompensed at the judg- 
ment, but the saints of God must be governed by the higher 
law, the law of supreme love to God and equal love to fel- 
lows. Such obedience can come only from a heart renewed 
by the Spirit of God, 2 Cor. 3: 3, and *'if ye be led of the 
Spirit ye are not under the law." Gal. 5: 18. 


Is any man a Christain who refrains from murder, theft, 
and adultery, simply because the law says, ' 'Thou shalt not"1 
No, indeed, he must refrain from these from a higher motive 
than that. Then surely he must be governed by a higher 
law than the decalogue. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." 
Rom. 13: 10. The dispute between Paul and the Judaizers 
then was over the nature and obligation of the Jewish law. 
The dispute now concerning the Jewish Sabbath involves 
the same point, the obligation of the letter of the Jewish 

Proposition 15. The letter of the law is not hinding 
upon Christians as a coercive code. Little argument ought 
to be needed to prove this; for if the letter of the law is 
binding, then we must be circumcised ; ofter sacrifices, keep 
the seventh day and all the Jewish ritual, for "the law" in- 
cluded the whole law. Gal. 3: 10; 5: 3. 

Notice m the following text that "the righteousness of the 
law" and the spirit of the law is one thing, while "the let- 
ter" and outward service is quite another. Notice further 
that a man may "fulfill the law" without keeping the letter of 
it, and thus condemn the formalist who keeps the letter of 
the law but not the spirit of it. Paul says: "If the uncircum- 
cision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncir- 
cumcision be counted for circumcision ? And shall not un- 
circumcision which is by nature, if it fulfill the law, judge 
thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the 
law ? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly, neither 
is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh. But he 
is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that 
of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise 
is not of men, but of God." Rom. 2: 26-29. 

Paul argues that Christians must be circumcised, but not 
"outwardly in the flesh," as formerly, but "inwardly in the 
spirit, not in the letter." By this he illustrates the diflfer' 

THE LAW. 331 

ence between keeping the law now and formerly. So, fur- 
ther on: "Ye are not under the law but under grace." 
Rom. 6: 14. So in the next chapter he says: "But now we 
are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we 
were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and 
not in the oldness of the letter." Rom. 7: 6. 

How can one misunderstand language so plain ? Now^ 
under Christ, we are delivered from the law; that law is 
dead, and we serve Christ in the spirit, "not in the old let- 
ter." So again he says, urging this point: "That the 
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the spirit." Chap. 8: 4. Paul 
uses the word '^JlesK'^ for the outward "works of the law." 
See Gal. 3: 2, 3, We do not walk according to the outward 
form of the law, but we do obey the intent and spirit of it 
or its "righteousness," as he here calls it. 

The higher law of God, supreme love to God and equal 
love to our neighbors, upon which the Jewish law hung, was 
the "spirit," "righteousness," or real intent of "the law." 
This "first and great" law Christians do keep, while free 
from the mere letter of the law, which was bondage. Hence 
to the Galatians who were being troubled with Judaizing 
legalists, Paul wrote: "For, brethren, ye have been called 
unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the 
flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is ful- 
filled in one word, even in this: Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bor as thyself. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not 
under the law." Gal. 5: 13, 14, 18. 

How he reiterates the truth in all ms letters, that Chris- 
tians are not under the law; that they are called to a liberty 
which Jews never enjoyed. Notice how he states it over 
and over that all the law is fulfilled in this. Love your neigh- 
bor as yourself. "Love is the fulfilling of the law." "He 
that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Rom. 13: 8, 10. 


This is not a liberty to licentiousness ana self-indulgence; 
but it is a liberty from the forms and ceremonies of the law 
which bound the Jews. 

In Jer. 31: 31-3ti, it was foretold that the Lord would 
make a ''new covenant*' with Israel, ''not according" to the 
one he made at Sinai; for he would put his laws in their 
hearts and minds. This clearly indicated a change from the 
previous formal way of governing God's people. Paul thus 
refers to that prophecy: "not in tables of stone, but in 
fleshly tables of the heart." "Who also hath made us able 
ministers of the New Testament; not of the letter, but of 
the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth 
life." 2 Cor. 3: 3, 6. 

Now the law for the Christian is not that written in the 
book or on the tables of stone. It was not the letter but 
the spirit of that law which the apostles taught. So Paul 
says. Then he says that "the ministration of death written 
and engraven in stones, was" ''done away." Verses 7, 11. 
Surely, then. Christians are free from the letter of that law; 
but it is still to be studied with reverence and its spirit car- 
ried out in Christian duties though in form these must difier 
from Jewish duties. The observance of the Lord's day 
meets the spirit of the fourth commandment. We are cir- 
cumcised in heart, not in the flesh. Rom. 2: 26-29. 

Rev. W. P. Harrison, D. D., book editor of the M. 
E. Church, South, truly says: "The coming of Christ 
did not repeal any moral law, and the ceremonial law was 
not repealed, but fulfilled. All that was permanent, 
useful, or spiritual in the Mosaic economy remains, 
not in the letter of statutes^ but in the fulfilled and 
completed dispensation of grace. " The Christian Sabbath, 
"The page 30. So Rev. J. H. Potts, D. D. Methodist, says: 
Law under the Mosaic dispensation was formulated into 
nhie moral precepts, with a Sabbath commandment added, 

THE LAW. 333 

making ten in all. This same law under the Christian 
dispensation is summarized under two grand heads — love to 
God and love to man. Yet not one jot or one tittle of the 
essence of the moral law is abated. When Paul, referring 
to the abolishment of the law dispensation, said: 'For if 
that which was done away was glorious, much more that 
which remaineth is glorious, ' he indicated the correct status 
of the law. The essence of the moral law *remaineth.' " 
This is exactly what I believe. 

The following, from Peter, is a fair illustration of the 
spiritual application of the old law which the apostles make 
all through the gospel: "Ye also, as lively stones, are built 
up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual 
sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." 1 Peter 2: 
5. The old temple, priesthood, and sacrifices of the law, 
now have a spiritual meaning as found in the church and its 

Proposition 16. The law was changed. Jeremiah pre- 
dicted that under the new covenant, God's law would be 
written in the heart and not as it was before. "1 will put 
my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts." 
Jer. 31: 33. Paul refers to this when he says. Ye are our 
epistle "written not with ink, but with the spirit of the liv- 
ing God; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the 
heart." 2 Cor. 3: 3. So then God's law is not now written 
on tables of stone as at Sinai. This is a square contradic- 
tion to what Adventists teach. They claim that God's law is 
still on stones in heaven the same as of old. Paul says no, 
it is written by the spirit upon the heart. 

This implied ci radical change in the f oiTn of the law and the 
way it was to be taught. In Heb. 7: 12, it is expressly de- 
clared that "there is made of necessity a change also of the 
laWo" The letter of the Je^ash law is wholly unfitted to 
the condition of the Christian church. It can only be a 


guide to us as modified and interpreted by tlie gospel. But 
in the gospel there is no hij unction to keep the seventh day. 
Hence the letter of that command does not concern us. 

Proposition 17. The whole Mosaic system ended at the 
cross. Surely this is so plainly taught all through the New 
Testament that no one should deny it. But we have clearly 
proved that "the law" included the whole code of laws given 
to Israel at Sinai, moral, civil, and ceremonial precepts, 
decalogue and all. 

That entire system of law was framed to fit the Jewish 
age and could not possibly be applied to Gentile Christians 
in all parts of the world. Hence a "new way," Heb. 10: 20, 
a "new covenant," Heb. 8: 13, a new "ministration," 2 Cor. 
3: 8, was introduced, so there was " made of necessity a 
change also of the law," Heb. Y: 12. 

Examine carefully a few texts to which I will refer. ' 'The 
law was given by Moses but grace and truth came by Jesus 
Christ." John 1: 17. This implies a change. "Ye are not 
under the law, but under grace." Rom. 6: 14. "Under 
the merciful dispensation of the gospel." John Wesley. 
^'The law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that 
we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, 
we are no longer under a schoolmaster," Gal. 3: 24, 25. "Ye 
also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ," 
Rom. 7: 4. "Now we are delivered from the law," verse 
6. "Christ is the end of the law," Rom. 10: 4. "The 
ministration of death written and engraven in stones was 
glorious." "That which is done away was glorious," 2 Cor. 
3: 7, 10. That ends the decalogue. 

* 'Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of 
commandments contained in ordinances," Eph. 2: 15. 
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was 
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to the cross." "Let no man therefore judge 

THE LAW. 335 

yovL in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of 
the new moon, or of the Sabbath days/' Col. 2: 14, 16. 
*'For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity 
change also of the law." ''For there is verily a disannulling 
of the commandment going before for the weakness and un- 
profitableness thereof. " ' ' For the law made nothing perfect 
but the bringing in of a better hope." Heb. 7: 12, 18, 19. 

Read Acts 15: 1-29 and see this whole matter of "the 
law" discussed by the apostles and settled in these words: 
'• Forasmuch as we have heard that certain which went 
out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your 
souls, saying, ye must be circumcised, and keep the law; to 
whom we gave no such commandment." Verse 24. The 
decision is positive and clear: the apostles gave no command- 
ment to "keep the law." It does not say '^ceremonial law," 
or a part of the law, but simply 'Hhe law." Adventists say 
we must keep the law or "ye can not be saved," exactly 
what those Judaizers said, verse 1, and just what the council 
condemned. Circumcision was specially mentioned because 
it was the initiatory rite, the sign which represented the 
whole law. Thus when a Gentile would partake of the 
privileges of the nation, he had first to be circumcised. 
Ex. 12: 48. To be uncircumcised was to be a heathen, un- 
clean, and lost; to be circumcised was to be an Israelite, a 
member of the holy nation. Hence circumcision represented 
the whole law of Moses in all its parts. Elder Butler, Ad- 
ventist leader, has to confess this. He says: " The term 
'the law, ' among the Jews generally included the five books 
of Moses, thus including the whole system, moral, ritual, 
typical, and civil This as a system these Judaizing teachers 
desired to maintain Circumcision was a sign of the whole.'' 
Law in Galatians, page 70. Never was a truer statement. 
Circumcision was the sign of the whole Mosaic system, 
moral, typical, civil, all chat was written in the five books of 


Moses, of which the decalogue was a chief part. The apos- 
tles decided that Gentile believers were free from this whole 
system of law. Put with Butler's statement this from Elder 
Smith, another leading Adventist, and you have the whole 
truth: "That which was abolished at the cross was an en- 
tire system. God did not single out and abolish portions 
and pieces of some arrangement or system, and leave other 
parts remaining." Synopsis of Present Truth, page 259. 
Correct; the whole system ended at the cross. 

Proposition 18. No part of GocTs great spiritual law 
was abolished^ re-enacted^ or changed at the cross. Adventists 
make a great ado over the absurdity of the idea that God 
should abolish his law at the cross and then immediately re- 
enact nine-tenths of it. They say, as well cut off your ten 
fingers to get rid of one bad one and then stick nine on 
again. So they go on with a whole jumble of absurdities 
involved in the position that God's moral law was abolished 
at the cross and a new one given. But this is only a man 
of straw of their own making and hence easily demolished. 
We hold no such absurd position. God's great moral law is 
unchangeable. But the Mosaic law was only a national one 
founded upon the principles of God's moral law. Even 
while it existed it did not supercede God's higher law, and 
when it ended it in no way affected God's law, which contin- 
ued right on unchanged and unchangeable. 

To ilhistrate: The state law of Michigan forbids murder, 
theft and adultery. In these items it is founded upon God's 
moral law. Now abolish the law of Michigan. Does that 
abolish God's law ? No. So with the state law of Israel. 
Neither its enactment on Sinai nor its abolition at the cross 
in any way changed God's great moral law by which he will 
judge the world. The Advent absurdities grew out of their 
own false theory, that is all. Adventists agree with us that 
the law of Moses, Acts 15: 5, was abolished. Well, that law 

THE LAW. 337 

contained many precepts as purely moral as anything in the 
decalogue. Here are some: ''Thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy heart. " Deut. 6: 5. ''Love thy neighbor 
as thyself." "Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither 
lie one to another." Lev. 19: 11, 18. Scores of such pre- 
cepts are all through this law which they admit was 
abolished. They are just as moral, spiritual, and necessary 
as anything in the ten commandments, and yet all this law 
was abolished as they admit. But did that abolish the duty 
enjoined in these precepts ? No, because they were inherent 
in a higher law. Just so every moral principle involved in 
the decalogue existed in a higher law before that document 
was given, and so did not cease when that law expired. 
Elder White himself makes this admission: "The ten com- 
mandments are adapted to fallen beings. As worded in the 
sacred Scripture, they are not adapted to the condition of 
holy angels, nor to man in his holy estate in Eden. •>«•** 
But the two grand principles of God's moral government 
did exist before the fall, in the form of law. * -^ * These 
two great commandments embrace all that is required by 
the ten precepts of the decalogue." Law and Gospel, pages 
4, 5. Good and true. Then the ten commandments are 
not God's primary law. They are only temporary, while 
that containing all that is moral in them, and much more, 
continues always. 

"The teachings of Christianity are facts and principles, 
not propositions and restrictions; its institutions are simple 
outlines, not precise ceremonies; and its laws are moral sen- 
timents, not minute mechanical directions. " Pulpit Com- 
mentary on 2 Cor. 3: 6. This is the truth well put. 

So the wicked who do not live by these principles, who do 
not love God nor their fellows, but who live selfish, corrupt 
lives, will be judged and condemned by these principles of 
God's eternal law, as taught in the New Testament. 



With Seventh-Day Adventists the decalogue is the one 
supreme moral and spiritual law of God, than which there is 
none higher. It is the law which governs the angels in heaven. 
Thus Mrs. White says: "The law of God existed before 
man was created. The angels were governed by it. * * * 
After Adam and Eve were created, God made known to 
them his law." "Spirit of Prophecy," Vol. I, page 261. 
It governs all men in all ages, and in the world to come. 
These ten commandments cover the whole duty of man, so 
that there is no sin which can be committed that is not a 
violation of this law, while at the same time it enjoins every 
virtue. "No virtue known to the moral world herein fails of 
approval and commendation; and no vice or crime of which 
man was ever guilty, escapes condemnation." Perfection of 
the Ten Commandments, page 4. But these claims are ex- 
travagant and unfounded. A desire to sustain the seventh- 
day Sabbath has led to this false position on the decalogue. 
Twenty-five hundred years, nearly half the entire history 
of the world, passed away before the decalogue was given 
at all, as we have proved. This is strange if the decalogue 
is so all important. 

Let us examine it. Moses says distinctly that all the words 
which the Lord spoke were written on the tables of stone: 
"And the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone, 
written with the finger of God: and on them was written ac- 
cording to all the words which the Lord spake with you in 
the Mount, out of the midst of the fire." Deut. 9: 10. This 



text is too decisive to be evaded. All that God spoke was 
written on the tables and was a part of the decalogue. Here 
are the first of those words: "And God spake all these 
words, saying, I am the Lord thy God, which have brought 
thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 
Thou shalt have no other gods before me," etc. Ex, 20: 
1-3. These words are as much a part of the decalogue as 
any of the rest of it. They were spoken by God from 
heaven, written by his finger, were engraven on the stone, 
and put in the ark. Now look at the law chart which 
Seventh-Day Adventists hang up as the ' 'law of God. " Are 
these words on there ? No, indeed. Why are they left oflT? 
Because, if put on, they would spoil their whole theory of 
that law. They claim that this law is binding upon the 
angels. But how would this sound to the angels: "I am 
the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of 
Egypt, out of the house of bondage"? Were the angels in 
bondage in Egypt ? Would not that sound a little queer to 
Gabriel and the seraphs, to be told that they had been in bond • 
age in Egypt? Read it to Adam. That would have been news 
to him to learn that he had been in bondage in Egypt! Eead 
it to a free-born American; read it to all the redeemed hosts 
in heaven. To whom are the words applicable ? Just to 
the Jewish nation and to no others. For them the deca- 
logue was framed and to them it was given. For years 
I searched to find one text stating that this law was 
ever given to any people but the Jews. I never found 
it. These first words show plainly that it was addressed 
only to them. 

Seventh-Day Adventists assert that the Sabbath precept 
is the only thing in the decalogue that tells who gave it. 
Thus: ''Aside from this precept [the Sabbath] there is 
nothing in the decalogue to show by whose authority the law 
is given." Mrs. White, in Great Controversy, page 284. 


This is not true. The introductory words tell plainly who 
gave it. It was the God who brought them out of Egypt. 
Here are the name, signature and seal of that law in the 
first words of it. Here God stands before them as their 
Deliverer^ rather than as their Creator. Their obedience to 
these commands is based upon this fact. See how plain it 
is. I am the Lord thy God that brought thee out of Egypt, 
therefore thou shalt do thus and so. Egypt, not Eden, is 
pointed to. In the copy of the decalogue as given in Deut. 
6: 6-21, there is no reference whatever to creation, while de- 
liverance from Egypt is made prominent. ' ' To extend it 
further than its own preface is to violate the rules of 
criticism. " 

What an unnatural and unheard of thing it would be, in 
giving an important document, to sign the name of the au- 
thor in the middle of it, as Sabbatarians say the Lord did in 
giving the decalogue! In our time the name is signed at the 
close of a document; but anciently, specially among the 
Jews, the name of the author was always given ^rs^, in the 
first sentence of the document. Thus: " Artaxerxes, king 
of kings, unto Ezra," etc. Ezra 7: 12. "The vision of 
Isaiah," etc. Isa. 1: 1. "The words of Jeremiah," etc. 
Jer. 1: 1. "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ," etc. Rom. 
1: 1. "James, a servant of God," etc. Jas. 1: 1. "Peter, 
an apostle," etc. 1 Pet. 1:1. So it is all through the Bible, 
the name and authority are given first, then follows the body 
of the document. Just so the Lord, according to this 
ancient custom then in use and familiar to all, in giving the 
decalogue first announces his name, "the Lord thy God," 
and his power, "that brought thee out of Egypt." 

This he does in the opening words of that law. Here, 
then, in the very first words of the decalogue, and not in 
the Sabbath precept in the middle of the law, is the name, 
sign and seal of the law-giver, Jehovah, i^ho brought them 


out of Egypt. This settles it that this law was not given till 
then, was given only to the Jews and was designed for no 
others. To illustrate: Opening to a law passed by the leg- 
islature of Michigan, February 16, 1882, I read: " Be it 
enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the 
state of Michigan," etc. Now suppose that some one should 
claim that this law was passed one thousand years ago and 
was designed for the whole world. Would not these open- 
ing w^ords show that this law was not enacted till Michigan 
became a state and that it was designed only for the people 
of Michigan ? Assuredly. Just so the opening words of 
the decalogue show that this law was not given till God 
brought Israel out of Egypt, that it was given to them and 
to no others. If any one will find a copy of the decalogue be- 
fore this time, we will give up the case. All the way 
through it there are evidences that it was worded to fit only 
the Jewish nation in their peculiar circumstances. 

Take the Sabbath commandment: ''Thy son, nor thy 
daughter, thy man servant, nor thy maid servant, nor thy 
cattle, nor thy stranger that is w^ithm thy gates." Ex. 20: 
10. Think of that commandment being given to angels in 
heaven! "Sons," "daughters," and "thy neighbor's wife," 
verse 17, when they neither marry nor are given m marriage! 
Again: "Cattle," "ox," "ass," etc. Do the angels own cat- 
tle and work oxen and asses in heaven ? So "man servants 
and maid servants." This means bond servants or slaves, 
such as the Hebrews owned in those days. This is shown 
by the tenth commandment, verse 17. " Thou shalt not 
covet thy neighbor's * * * man servant, nor his maid ser- 
vant, nor his ox, nor his ass." These were his property, 
servants or slaves, oxen, asses, etc. But do the angels own 
Slaves ? Did Adam have servants in Eden ? Will the re- 
deemed own them hereafter? What nonsense to apply this 
law to the angels and to Eden and to heaven! This wording 


was specially adapted to the social condition of the Jews as 
a nation in the land of Canaan, and to no others. 

Once more: ^'Thy stranger that is within thy gates." 
Verse 10. As everybody knows, "the stranger "was the 
Gentile. "Within thy gates" was a common expression 
meaning within your cities or dwelling in your land. It has 
no reference to living on your farm or inside the gates that 
enclose your farm, as Adventists always explain it. The 
towns were walled in and entered by gates. Here is where 
the judges sat and all business was done. Thus: "All that 
went in at the gate of his city." Gen. 23: 10. "Judges 
and ojEcers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates." Deut. 
16: 18. To this custom of the Jews the Sabbath command- 
ment refers. All the Gentiles dwelling in their cities among 
them must be made to keep the Sabbath. This shows it to 
be a national law, worded in all its parts to fit the circum- 
stances of the Jews at the time. 

This command, then, could not apply to any but the Jews 
there. Again, the fifth commandment: " The land which 
the Lord giveth them," verse 12, plainly refers to Canaan, 
which God gave them. The ninth precept: "Thou shalt 
not bear false witness against thy neighbor." This does not 
relate to lying in general, but only to a false oath against 
a neighbor in court. See Deut. 19: 15-19. A man could 
tell a hundred lies which would not be false witness against 
a neighbor. The command against lying is found in Lev. 
19: 11: "Neither lie one to another." This is a moral pre- 
cept much broader than the ninth commandment. 

Every principle contained in the decalogue is also found 
time and again laid down in the law of Moses, either in the 
same or similar words. Thus, for example: Lev. 19 reiterates 
every principle found in the ten commandments, with many 
more besides. How erroneous, then, to call one the moral 
law and the other the ceremonial law, when both are of the 


«ame nature, the decalogue simply being representative pre- 
cepts from the law of Moses. 

But the chief argument used to prove the superior nature 
of the ten commandments is that they were spoken by 
God's voice, written by His finger on stone, and placed in 
the ark, while all the rest of the law was written by the 
hand of Moses in a book. Why were these commandments 
thus selected out and given in such a manner if not to exalt 
them above all others ? The answer is easy: According to 
the custom of those times, any solemn contract or covenant 
was commemorated by selecting some object as witness or 
testimony of it. Thus: Jacob erected a pillar as a witness 
of his vow to God. Gen. 28: 18. Jacob and Laban made 
a heap of stones as witness of their covenant. Gen. 31: 48. 
Abraham set apart seven lambs as " a witness " of his cove- 
nant with Abimelech. Gen. 21: 27-30. 

Just so w^hen the solemn covenant was made between God 
and Israel at Sinai, the Lord gave them the tables of stone 
to be always kept as a witness or "testimony" of that agree- 
ment. Hence they are called "the tables of testimony," 
that is, witness. Ex. 31: 18. So the tabernacle was "the 
tabernacle of testimony," Num. 1: 53; or, "the tabernacle 
of witness," Num. 17: 7. These tables of stone, then, con- 
taining some of the chief items of the law, were always to 
be kept as '^witness'''' of the covenant which Israel had 
made to keep that law. Evidently this is the reason why 
the decalogue was given as it was, and not because it was a 
perfect and eternal law in and of itself. 

Manifestly it would have been impossible to carry around 
the whole law if written on stones; hence only a few 
samples out of that law could have been selected and put on 
stones to be kept as a witness of that covenant. So the 
reason why God spoke these words was not because it was a 
perfect law, but to impress their minds so that they never 


would forget it. This is just what God says himself: **I 
will make them hear my words, that they may learn to fear 
me all the days that they shall live." Deut. 4: 10. How 
much more simple and manifest these reasons are than the 
imaginary ones invented by Sabbatarians. 

That the decalogue was merely the national law for the 
Jews and temporal in its obligation, is proved by the fact 
that stoning to death was the penalty for its violation. 
When death was thus inflicted upon a man, he had paid the 
penalty of that law, and all the penalty there was. But is 
stoning to death the penalty for God's moral law ? No, that 
is eternal death at the judgment. A man who is hung for 
murder has paid the penalty of the law of our land, the 
same as the Jew who was stoned paid the penalty of the law 
of his land. Will God judge a man the second time at the 
judgment by the law of our land after he has once paid its 
penalty by hanging? No, but he will be judged by another 
and a higher law, the great spiritual law of God. And so 
it will be with the Jews. They will never be judged the 
second time by the decalogue, for that was only national, but 
by the higher law, the one that requires supreme love to 
God, and love to man as to himself. A law without a pen- 
alty is a nullity; but stoning, the penalty attached to the de- 
calogue, was abolished at the cross; hence the law must have 
ceased there too. 

Seventh-Day Adventists claim that the ten commandments 
are a perfect law, condemning every possible sin and requir- 
ing every possible virtue But this is all assumption and con- 
trary to the manifest truth. Which one of the ten com- 
mandments condemns pride, boasting, drunkenness, unthank- 
fulness, love of pleasure, anger, filthy talk, impatience, 
variance, selfishness, and the like ? Which one of the ten 
commandments requires us to feed the poor, to visit the 
fatherless and the widow, to sufier long and be kind, to be 


gentle, meek, temperate, to pray, to repent, to go to meet- 
ing, to forgive, and the like ? No, the decalogue does no 
such thing, because it was made for no such purpose. It 
was merely prohibitory in its nature. The man who merely 
did nothing, who simply avoided crime, kept that law. But 
the law of God, by which a Christian must live, requires him 
to do, and to do much. He must love God, love his neish- 
bor, love his enemies, visit the widow and the needy, suffer 
wrong, be patient, entertain strangers, and be active in every 
good work. 

It requires unceasing activity and the consecration of all 
our energies to good works; but the decalogue requires 
nothing but to avoid open crime. The decalogue alone is 
never called the law of God, nor the law of the Lord, nor a 
perfect law, nor is it said that any one will be judged by it, 
or that it is binding on Christians. 


Seventh-Day Adventists have made a great ado over the 
way Catholics divide and number the ten commandments. 
They have gotten up a chart showing in one column the de- 
calogue "as changed by the pope" and in another as "given 
by God." Here they show how "the pope has changed God's 
law in fulfillment of Dan. 7: 25." According to this, the 
Catholics included in the first commandment what we have 
in the first two. Then our third is their second, our fourth 
their third, and so on till our tenth of which they make two. 
Adventists claim that the pope did this to get rid of the 
second commandment and to change the Sabbath. But the 
whole thing is utterly false, as may be seen under the word 
decalogue in any religious encyclopedia. The Schafl-Herzog 
Encyclopedia says: 

' 'There have been three arranorements of the decaloo^ue — 
the Talmudic (Jewish), the Augustinian (adopted by the Ro- 




1. 1 am the Lord, etc. (v. 2) 
3. Against idols and im- 
ages, (3-6). 

3. Blasphemy. 

4. The Sabbath. 

5. Filial Obedience. 

6. Murder. 

7. Adultery. 

8. Theft 

9. False witnese. 
10. Coveting. 


1. Against idols, (v. 3). 

2. Against images, (4-6). 
8. Blasphemy. 

4. The Sabbath. 

5. Filial Obedience. 

6. Murder. 

7. Adultery. 

8. Theft. 

9. False vritnesi. 
10. CoYeting. 

man Catholic and Lutheran churches), and the Hellenistic 
(Greek), the view of Philo, Josephus, Origen, the Greek and 
Reformed churches, etc. The following table exhibits the 
differences, the record in Ex. 20 being used. 


1. Against idols ana Im- 
agei, (3 6). 

2. Blasphemy. 

3. The Sabbath. 

4. Filial Obedience. 

5. Murder. 

6. Adultery. 

7. Theft. 

8. False witness. 

9. Thou Shalt not covet tby 
neighbor's h. (17). 

10. The rest of v. 17. 

It will be seen here that the Catholics have simply fol- 
lowed the early fathers in this, while we have followed the 
Greeks. The pope had nothing to do with making this divi- 
sion of the commandments. It will be seen that according 
to the Talmudic (Jewish) division, which is the oldest of all» 
the first commandment is the words, "I am the Lord th}? 
God which brought thee out of the land of Egypt," etc. 
The Jews, the Catholics, and the Lutherans include in 
their first commandment the introductory words, " I am 
the Lord th}^ God," &c., just as all should do, for these are 
the most important words of all, for they tell who gave 
that law. Adventists expunge these to save their theory. 

Thus, as I learned more, I began to see on every hand 
how the arguments of the Adventists were fallacious and 
contrary to history and to facts. 


Many of the most eminent, devout and learned men of 
the church have held that the decalogue was abolished, 
though they were far from being Antinomians. 


Among these were the apostolical fathers, Luther, Calvin, 
Milton, Baxter, Bunyan, Doddridge, Whately, Grotius, 
Locke, Sherlock, Watts, Hessey, Judson, George Dana 
Boardman, and a host of such men. 

Justin Martyr, A. D. 140, says: "The law promulgated 
on Horeb is now old and belongs to yourselves (Jews) alone: 
but this is for all universally. Now law placed against law 
has abrogated that which is before it." Dialogue with Try- 
pho, Chap. 11. On this Elder Andrew says: "That Justin 
held to the abrogation of the ten commandments is also 
manifested." Testimony of the Fathers, page 43. 

Tertullian, A. D. 200, says: "The abolition of the an- 
cient law we fully admit." Against Marcian, Book 5. Chap. 
2. On the law he quotes Col. 2: 16, and says: "The apos- 
tle here teaches clearly how it has been abolished. " Ibid. 
Chap. 19. 

Luther says: "The ten commandments do not apply 
to us Gentiles and Christians, but only to the Jews. If a 
preacher wishes to force you back to Moses, ask him whether 
you were brought by Moses out of Egypt. If he says no, 
then say: 'How, then, does Moses concern me, since he 
speaks (in the ten words) to the people that have been brought 
out of Egypt. ' In the New Testament Moses comes to an 
end and his laws lose their force. " See Kitto's Cyclopedia, 
Article Law. 

Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, says: "In its individual, 
or what is usually called its 'moral' aspect, the Law bore 
equally the stamp of transitoriness. * * * It seems 
clear enough that its formal, coercive authority as a whole, 
ended with the close of the Jewish dispensation." Art. Law. 

Kitto's Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature, says : ' ' They 
[Christ and the apostles] even clearly indicate that the moral 
law is by no means excepted when they speak of the aboli' 
tion of the law in general." Art. Law, 


The recent popular commentary of Jamison, Faussett and 
Brown, says : ' ' The law (including especially the moral 
law wherein lay the chief difficulty in obeying) is abrogated 
to the believer as far as it was a compulsory, accusing code. " 
On Col. 2: 16. 

The Encyclopedia Britannica says: '' The ten command- 
ments do not apply to us Gentiles and Christians, but only 
to the Jews." On the Ten Commandments. 

Says Dr. Dobbs, Baptist: "Nor is this 'new and danger- 
ous teaching.' It was the doctrine of the Protestant re- 
formers of the sixteenth century. Calvin argues in this 
strain in his Institutes. The eminent Baptist scholar and 
commentator, John Gill, says, writing on Ex. 20: 1, 2: 
'Verse 2 shows that this body of laws was delivered out to 
the people of Israel, and primarily belongs to them; for of 
no other people can the above things be said.' On Matt. 5: 
17, and 2 Cor. 3: 7-11, Gill is emphatic in similar teaching. 
Read this, on the latter passage: 'The law is that which is 
done away; not merely the ceremonial law, or the judi- 
cial law; but the whole ministery of Moses; and particularly 
the law of the decalogue.' 1 close by citing an incident re- 
lated by Mrs. Emily C. Judson, in the Life of Adoniram 
Judson, by his son. Dr. Edward Judson. Mrs. Judson 
says that her husband once reproved her for introducing 
some lessons from the Old Testament into her Bible classes, 
'comparing it to groping among shadows when she might 
just as well have the noonday sun.' Mrs Judson in relat- 
ing this incident, says: 'My impression, drawn from many 
a long talk, is that he considered the Old Testament as the 
Scriptures given to the Jews especially, and to them only. 
He did not like the distinction commonly drawn between 
the moral and the ceremonial law, and sometimes spoke 
with an earnestness amounting to severity, of the constant 
use made of the ten commandments by Christians. He 


thought the Old Testament very important as explanatory 
and corroborative of the New — as a portion of the inspira- 
tion which came froni God, etc., but binding on Christians 
only so far as repeated in the New Testament. He used to 
speak of the Mosaic law as fulfilled in Christ, and so having 
no further power w^hatever; and to say that we have no 
right to pick out this as moral, and therefore obligatory, and 
the other as ceremonial and no longer demanding obedience. 
Practically we had nothing to do with the Old Testament 
law.' " Life of Judson, pages 411, 412. 

Rev. George Dana Boardman, D. D., the eminent Baptist 
divine, in his recent book on '^ The Ten Commandments," 
says: * 'Although the decalogue, in its spirit, is for all lands 
and ages, yet, in its letter, it was evidently for the Jews. 
The very preamble proves the assertion : ' God spake all 
these words, saying : I am Jehovah, thy God, who brought 
\hee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house or bondage. ' 
Then follow the ten commandments, based on the unique 
fact that Jehovah was the covenant God of Israel." Pages 

John Milton says: ''With regard to the doctrine of those 
who consider the decalogue as a code of universal morality, 
I am at a loss to understand how such an opinion should 
ever have prevailed; these commandments being evidently 
nothing more than a summary of the whole Mosaic law as 
tha fourth is of the w^hole ceremonial law; which therefore 
can contain nothing applicable to the gospel worship." 
Treatise on Christian Doctrine, VoL 1, Book 2, Chap. 7. 



No other subject perplexes Adventists so much as the 
covenants. They dread to meet it. They have tried vari- 
ous ways to explain it away, but they are not satisfactory 
even to themselves. I have been there and know. " The 
abolition of the Sinatic covenant carries with it the abolition 
of the Jewish Sabbath so completely that no authoritative 
trace of it can be found this side of the grave of our risen 

Elder Smith says: "If the ten commandments constitut- 
ed the old covenant, then they are forever gone." "This, 
therefore, becomes a test question." Two Covenants, page 
5. We will soon see the force of this. Jer. 31: 31, 32, 
says: "Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the 
house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made 
with their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand 
to bring them out of the land of Egypt." 
• Here we learn these facts about the first, or old covenant: 
1. It was made between God and Israel. 2. It was made 
when he brought them out of Egypt. 3. A new covenant 
is to be made. 4. It will not be according to the old one. 
Adventists and all agree that this old covenant is found in 
Ex, 19 to 24. We all know that the ten commandments, 
how and wh}^ they were given, are the prominent things in 
those five chapters. We also know that they are called 
"the covenant," that was given on Sinai or Horeb. Thus: 
"And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire; 



ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only 
ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, 
which he commanded you to perform, even ten command- 
ments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone." 
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horebo 
The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with 
us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." Deut. 
4: 12, 13; 5: 2, 3. Then follows the ten commandments as 
the covenant named. Again : ' ' The tables of stone, even 
the tables of the covenant which the Lord made with you. " 
Deut. 9:9. So also, ' ' and he wrote upon the tables the 
words of the covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. 34: 
28. Surely this is plain enough for a common man. What 
is a covenant? Webster says: '^A mutual consent or agree- 
ment of two or more persons to do or forbear some act or 
thing; a contract." As the decalogue alone is not a mutual 
agreement, it must enter into, and so become a part of, some 
agreement, to be called the covenant as it is so frequently. 
Examining, we find that the decalogue was the very basis of 
the covenant at Sinai; the chief thing in the covenant be- 
tween God and Israel. This even Elder Smith owns: *' It 
was the basis of the whole arrangement." The Two Cove- 
nants, page 10. Being the chief thing in the covenant, it is 
by way of eminence put for the whole and so called " the 
covenant. " 

Opening to Ex. 19, we read: *^In the third month, when 
the children of Israel were gone forth out of the land of 
Egypt, the same day came they into the wilderness of Sinai. " 
Verse 1. It was at Sinai as they came out of Egypt. 
Moses was mediator. Verse 3. The Lord sends him to say 
to Israel: "If ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my 
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above 
all people: for all the earth is mine." Verse 5. Moses 
goes and repeats this offer to the Jews: they say: **A11 


that the Lord hath said we will do." Verse 8. Here was 
an agreement, a covenant, between God and Israel. They 
agree to obey his voice. He agrees to bless them. Next 
they prepare to hear his voice. Verses 9-25. In Chap. 20 
God speaks the ten commandments and follows them with 
various precepts through Moses to the end of chapter 23, 
closing with a promise to bless their bread and water, to 
take away sickness from them, to drive out the Canuanites 
and give them the land. Chapter 24: 1-8, relates how 
Moses then rehearsed to the people '* all the words of the 
Lord and all the judgments." Again they agree to obey. 
Verse 3. Then *' Moses wrote all the words of the 
Lord" in a book. Verse 4. Assembling the people again, 
he read '' the book of the covenant " to them, and the third 
time they say, '^ All that the Lord hath said we will do." 
Verse 7. '' And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on 
the people, and said, ' behold the blood of the covenant, 
which the Lord hath made with you concernins; all these 
words.' " Verse 8. That closed the covenant. We 
know that this was the first, or old, covenant, for Paul, 
quoting this very verse, says it was. Heb. 9: 18-20. That 
settles it. 

How much did the covenant embrace ? Only one truth- 
ful answer can be given, viz. All included in the record from 
Ex. 19: 1 to Ex. 24: 8, for this is the covenant in detail 
written out. Is the decalogue included in it ? As well deny 
that the sun shines, for there it is written out in full in the 
very heart of the covenant. Ex. 20: 1-17. As Smith said 
above, *'Itwas the basis of the whole arrangement." It 
was so prominent a part of the covenant that it alone is put 
for the whole covenant, as we often speak of seeing a vessel, 
a house, or a river, when we saw only a part of it. Hence 
the stones on which the decalogue was written are called 
'*the tables of the covenant," Deut. 9: 9; the book ir which 


it was written was called '* the book of the covenant," Ex 
24: 7; the ark in which it was deposited was called "the ark 
of the covenant," Deut. 31: 26. 

But Ex. 19-24, is only an epitome of the covenant; for all 
the subsequent teachings of Moses are only a further ex- 
planation of it and belonged to it. Indeed, it gave its name 
to the whole Old Testament, that is. Old Covenant. 

This covenant was only national and temporal, given only 
to the Jews and referred only to earthly blessings. It made 
no reference to the future life. Dr. Scott says: "The na- 
tional covenant with Israel was here meant. * * * It 
was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of 
Canaan," etc. "It did not refer to the final salvation of in 
dividuals." On Ex. 19: 5. 

Now notice how plainly and how repeatedly the ten com- 
mandments are called ' 'the covenant, " which God gave at 
Sinai to Israel when he brought them out of Egypt. 

"And he declared unto you his covenant, which he com- 
manded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he 
wrote them upon two tables of stone." Deut. 4: 13. 

**When I was gone up into the mount to receive the 
tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the 
Lord made with you." Deut. 9: 9. What covenant was 
on the tables of stone ? The one the Lord made with them. 
Again he tells when it was made and what it was: "The Lord 
our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord 
made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even 
us, who are all of us here alive this day. The Lord talked 
with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the 
fire (I stood between the Lord and you at that time, to shew 
you the word of the Lord: for ye were afraid by reason of 
the fire, and went not up into the mount), saying, I am the 
Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, 
from the house of bondage. Thou shalt have none other 


gods before me." Deut. 5: 2-7. So he goes on giving ihe 
ten commandments. That ought to settle it. 

*'And the Lord said mi to Moses, Write thou these words: 
for after the tenor of these words I have made a covenant 
with thee and with Israel. And he was there with the Lord 
forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread nor drink 
water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the 
covenant, the ten commandments." Ex. 34: 27, 28. If that 
is not plain enough, what would be ? 

**There was nothing in the ark save the two tables of 
stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the Lord 
made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they 
came out of the land of Egypt." 

"And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is^ the 
covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers wnen 
he brought them out of the land of Egypt." 1 Kings, 
8: 9-21. 

'*Andin it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of 
the Lord, that he made with the children of Israel." 2 
Chron. 6: 11. 

This shuts off all possible doubt as to what the covenant 
was. 1. There was nothing in the ark except the tables of 
stone. 2. Yet in that ark was "the covenant of the Lord 
which he made with Israel when he brought them out of 
Egypt." That certainly was the ten commandments. 
Elder Smith says: "If the ten commandments constituted 
the old covenant, then they are forever gone." Two Cove- 
nants, page 5. So they are indeed as we will now see. 


As we have seen, Jeremiah, Chap. 31: 31-34, foretold that 
the Lord would make a new covenant not according to the 
old one. Paul quotes this in full and says it is fulfilled in 
the gospel, thus: "But now hath he obtained a more excel- 


lent ministry, by hovv^ much also he is the mediator of a bet- 
ter covenant, which was established upon better promises. 
For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no 
place have been sought for the second. For finding fault 
with them, he saith. Behold, the daj^s come, saith the Lord, 
when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel 
and with the house of Judah: Not according to the cove- 
nant that I made with their fathers, in the day when I took 
them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; 
because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded 
them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I 
will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the 
Lord, I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in 
their hearts; and I will be to them a God, and they shall be 
to me a people. And they shall not teach every man his 
neighbor, and every man his brother, saying. Know the 
Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 
For I ^vill be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins 
and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he 
saith, a new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that 
which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." 
Heb. 8: 6-13. 

Notice the points in this. 1. Jesus is mediator of a bet- 
ter covenant than the old. Verse 6. Then we have some- 
thing better than the decalogue. 2. The new is establishe<l 
on better promises than the old, which as we have seen, 
were all temporal. See Ex. 23: 22-33. But the promises 
of the new covenant are all spiritual. They are (1) God's 
laws are to be in their hearts. (2.) All shall know^ the Lord, 
as only converted souls will be admitted; whereas under the 
old, every member of the nation, good or bad, was a citi- 
zen. (3.) God will forgive and forget all their sins, and 
so they will all be saints and heirs of heaven. (4.) Paul says 
that if the first covenant had been faultless, no place woulJ 


have been sought for a second. This shows that the first 
covenant was always imperfect. Hence the Lord says he 
will make a new one, not according to the old one. Then we 
cannot have the old decalogue right over again unchanged. 
Finally, Paul says the first is made old and is ready to van- 
ish away. That ends the old covenant, the one from Sinai, 
the ten commandments as we have proved. 

In 2 Cor. 3 Paul makes it even plainer still that the dec 
alogue has been removed. 

Verse 3. "Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of 
Christ ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the 
spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly 
tables of the heart. 6. Who also hath made us able minis- 
ters of the new testament [covenant] not of the letter, but 
of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 
7. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in 
stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not 
steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his 
countenance; which glory was to be done away; 8. How 
shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious ? 
9. For if the ministration of condemnation be glory, much 
more doth the ministration of righteousness exceed in glory. 
11. For if that which is done away was glorious, much more 
that which remaineth is glorious. 13. And not as Moses, 
which put a vaJil over his face, that the children of Israel 
could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is abol- 
ished: 14. But their minds were blinded: for until this day 
remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the 
Old Testament; which vail is done away in Christ." 

Observe the following points : 1. Verse 3 refers to the 
prophecy of Jeremiah that a new covenant would supercede 
the old one on stones. Now Paul says it is not written with 
ink as the law of Moses was in a book, nor on stones as the 
decalogue was, but by the spirit in the heart. The law in 


the book and on stones have both gone. 2. Verse 6: he 
says the apostles do not minister the letter but the spirit. 
" The letter refers exclusively to the law.'''' '' The context 
shows that by the letter he meant the old covenant and by 
the spirit the new." Pulpit Commentary, pages 59-80. 
3. To put it beyond all doubt, as to what he means, Paul, 
in verse 7, specifies "the ministration of death written and 
engraven in stones.'''' Surely we know that this was the 
decalogue. This he calls ''the ministration of death." 4. 
In verses 8 and 9 he calls the gospel "the ministration of the 
spirit" and "the ministration of righteousness" and says 
that it exceeds in glory the old ministration of death. 5. 
To put it beyond doubt that he means the decalogue, he re- 
fers to the vail which Moses put over his face when he came 
down with the tables of stone in his hands. Compare verse 
13 with Ex. 34: 27-35. 6. Twice Paul directly names that 
w^hich was " written in stone," verses 3 and 7; once he says 
we do not minister the letter, verse 6; he says that that 
which was engraven in stones was the ministration of death, 
verse 7, and the "ministration of condemnation," verse 9; 
then he says this was "abolished," verse 13, and three times 
he says it "was done away," verses 7, 11, 14. 7. Compare 
verses 7 and 11. "The ministration of death written and 
engraven in stones was glorious" and "that which is done 
away was glorious;" the very thing which was written in 
stones in verse 7, is said to "be done away" in verse 11. 
8. In verse 7 the ten commandments are evidently taken 
to represent the whole Mosaic dispensation. If these, the 
toundation of the whole system, are removed, then of course 
all the system must go w4th them. "The ten command- 
ments thus written here represent the whole Mosaic 
economy." Notes of Am Tract Society on verse 7. 

Adventists have tried to save their theory here by saying 
tnat in verse 7, ' ' ministration " was not what was ' ' en- 


graven " in stones; but that *' death " is what was written 
there. This will not do. In the Greek the word for en- 
graven exactly agrees with ministration but does not agree 
with deaths hence the decalogue is what is called "the min- 
istration," and that was done away. Dr. Clarke says on this 
verse: *' Here the apostle evidently intends the law." 
"This ministration of death, the ten commandments, writ- 
ten on stones, a part of the Mosaic institution, being put for 
the whole, was glorious." 

The Pulpit Commentary on this verse says : ' ' Literally, 
engraved in letters on stones (Ex. 31: 18). The reference 
shows that, in speaking of ' the letter,' St. Paul was only 
thinking of the Mosaic Law, and indeed, specifically of the 
decalogue." "The ministration of death was written and 
engraven on stone in the form of ten commandments." 
liead with verse 7 Ex. 31: 18; 32: 16. "Tables of stone 
written With the finger of God." "The writing of God, 
graven upon the tables." How can a candid man deny that 
Paul meant this very thing, the decalogue ? 

To the Galatians Paul also writes that the covenant of 
Sinai has gone. Vl \s\\\ be seen that he uses "covenant" and 
"law" as synonymous, showing that the law was the covenant. 

* ' Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not 
hear the law ? For it is written, that Abraham had two 
sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free woman. 
But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; 
but he of the free woman was by promise. Which things 
are. an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one 
from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which 
is Agar." Gal. 4: 21-24. 

Here the old law covenant of Sinai is declared to be 
" bondage " and he says " Be not entangled again with the 
yoke of bondage." Chap. 5:1. 

So in Heb. 12: 18-24, Paul distinctly says that Christians 


do not go to Sinai and the thunders of the law, but they 
come to Jesus and the new covenant. Read it all. Here 
are a few sentences: " For ye are not come unto the mount 
that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto 
blackness, and darkness, and tempest. And so terrible was 
the sight, that Moses said, I exceedingly fear and quake: 
But ye are come unto Mount Sion. And to Jesus the 
mediator of the new covenant.'^ 

Adventists are always dwelling upon the terrible scenes 
at Sinai at the giving of the law and pointing others there; 
but Paul says, No, do not go there; but to Mount Sion, to 
Jesus and the new covenant. 

So Jeremiah predicted the rejection of the covenant in the 
ark and that instead of it, men would seek to the name of 
the Lord at Jerusalem where the gospel went forth. 
" In those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, 
the ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come 
to mind; neither shall they remember it; neither shall they 
visit it; neither shall that be done any more. At that time 
they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all 
the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the 
Lord, to Jerusalem." Jer. 3: 16, 17. 

Adventists are trying to revive the very thing the Lord 
said should be forgotten, " the ark of the covenant." All 
their study and worship is centered around that just as of 
old with tke Jews. But the eflbrt is vain. God has said it. 
Since the cross Jesus and Jerusalem have been where all 
eyes have turned while the ark and old covenant are for- 
gotten, just as the Lord said it would be. So Isa. 2:3; 
" Out of Zion shall go forth the law and the word of the 
Lord from Jerusalem." There is where we now go for 
the law, not to the ark or to Sinai. 



When God speaks, is it not sin to disobey ? Surely it is. 
Paul says: *'God, who at sundry times and in divers man- 
ners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 
hath in these last days spoken unto us by his son." Heb. 
1: 1, 2. This says that God hath spoken to men in various 
ways at different times. No matter in what way God's will 
was expressed, it would have been sin to disobey. "If the 
law of Sinai is gone, then there is no law, no sin,'' say Ad- 
ventists. Indeed, then it is impossible for God to reveal 
his will to men, except in those exact words, letter for letter! 
Who believes such an absurdity ? The whole controversy 
is reduced to simply this: Has God in the New Testament, 
plainly and fully revealed his will to men and told them 
what is right and what is wrong? Is the will of God re- 
vealed through his Son in the New Testament higher author- 
ity than the Old Testament, or is it not ? Are the teachings 
of the New Testament to be modified to harmonize with the 
letter of the law in the Old Testament, or are the precepts 
of the Old Testament to be modified to harmonize with the 
gospel ? The latter, certainly. But the gospel nowhere en- 
joins the seventh day. 

Then is not the word of thej Lord Jesus Christ law ? 
Could there be any higher law? Said Jesus, "land my 
Father are one," John 10: 30, and "All men should honor 
the Son even as they honor the Father." John 5: 23. Then 
the words of Christ are to be honored as highly as the words 
of God. They are law the same as God's words are. God 



promised to raise up Christ and put his words in his mouth, 
and he should speak as God commanded him, Deut. 18: 18. 
Jesus said his Father sent him and commanded him what to 
say, John 12: 19, 50. "The word that I have spoken, the 
same shall judge him at the last day," verse 48. Then we 
shall be judged by the teachings of Christ, not by the old 
law. Christians will be judged by the gospel. "In the 
day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus 
Christ according to my gospel." Rom. 2: 16. God said, 
"Hear ye him," Matt. 17: 5. All authority in heaven and 
in earth is given to him, Matt. 28: 18. "He taught them as 
one having authority," Matt. 7: 29. He has a law. Gal. 6: 2. 
"Fulfill the law of Christ." "The isles shall wait for his 
law." Isa. 42: 4. We are under his law, 1 Cor. 9: 21. 
"Under law to Christ," Rev. Ver., "Under Christ's law," 
Diaglott. "Under the law of the Messiah," Syriac. The 
grandest summary of moral and religious truth the world 
ever heard was the sermon on the Mount, Matt. 5-7. It is 
as much superior to the decalogue as gospel is superior 
to Judaism. Here Christ forbids murder, verses 21, 22 
adultery, verses 27, 28; swearing, verse 34; hypocrisy, 6 
1-5; covetousness, 6: 19-34; and every wrong act, 7 
12. Would it not be sin to disobey the precepts of 

Jesus gave commandments to his disciples. Acts, 1: 2, and 
commanded them to teach them to all nations. Matt. 28: 
18-20. We are to keep his commandments. John 14: 15, 
21; 15: 10. Then would it not be sin to break them ? Who 
dare deny it? "Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the 
will of God," Eph. 1: 1, said, "Put away lying," "sin not," 
and-J 'steal no more," Eph. 4: 25-28, and, "The things I 
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor. 
14: 37. And yet Adventists will say, that if the old law is 
gone, there are no commandments against lying, stealing, 


etc. We know better, as the above teaches. Indeed, Paul 
says, *'I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you," 
* 'for I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel 
of God." Acts 20: 20, 27. Every sin of which the human 
heart is guilty, is plainly forbidden in the New Testament 
over and over by the authority of Christ and his apostles, 
as all know. Yet nothing condemns sin but the deca- 

The spirit of the Mosaic law, every moral principle in it, 
is reiterated over and over in the gospel, with all the author- 
ity of the Son of God. Not a Christian duty can be named 
which is not taught in the New Testament. Not a single 
thing is forbidden by the Old Testament which it would be 
wrong for a Christian to do, which is not also forbidden in 
the New, in some ')rm. Excepting the Sabbath, the other 
nine commandments are in the New Testament, either in the 
same words or in substance. 

Then is the Old Testament to be thrown away ? God for- 
bid. It should be received as the inspired word of God, a 
mine of precious truth; but it must be studied in the light of 
the New Testament, and modified by it. Nothing should 
be required of Christians simply because it is found in the 
law of the Old Testament. To bind our consciences, it must 
be required by the New Testament. Here the seventh day 
fails entirely, for there is no requirement in all the 
New Testament to keep it; but its abrogation is plainly 


Seventh-Day Adventists have much to say about "the 
commandments of God," Rev. 14: 12, and claim that these 
are the ten commandments. With them "the command- 
ments" always means just the decalogue, nothing more. 
Wherever they find this term they thus apply it. But such 


a position is wholly erroneous. There are over 800 texts 
where the phrase, "the commaudments," in its various forms 
is used. I have carefully examined every one of them. I 
find that it is a general term for all the requirements of the 
Bible. According to my best judgment, in forty-nine cases 
out of fifty it means something more than the ten com- 
mandments. Let the reader examine the following texts: 

Lev. 22 refers wholly to the duties of the priests and the 
offering of sacrifices. What the Lord commanded about 
these he calls his "commandments." Verse 31. In Deut. 
11: 27, 28, Avhat Moses commanded is called "the command- 
ments of God." Li Deut. 26: 12, 13, the term is used of 
the law of tithing. In Deut 28: 1, it is applied to all that 
Moses commanded them. With a concordance, any person 
can readily find hundreds of cases where this term means 
something more than the decalogue. When Jesus was 
questioned about the law he named as the greatest "com- 
mandments," two entirel}^ outside of the ten. See Matt. 22: 

So the precepts of Christ and His apostles are often called 
commandments. Jesus says: "The Father which sent me, 
he gave me a commandment what I should say " John 12: 
49. If God gave Christ commandments, and He gave them 
to His church, would they not be the commandments of 
God ? Certainly. The old dispensation was passing away, 
and the Lord was proclaiming the commandments of God 
for the new dispensation, the gospel. So in the great 
commission He said, "Teach them to observe all things 
whatsoever I have commanded 3'ou." Matt. 28: 20. 

Again Jesus said, John 14: 15, 21, "If ye love me, keep 
my commandments." ''He that hath my commandments, 
and kt^peth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that 
loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him- 
and wi 11 manifest myself to him. " How can we, in the face 


of these plain texts, say that Jesus gave no commandmants 1 
Who is it that loves Christ ? He that keeps his command- 
ments. This is what it is in the New Testament to be a 
commandment keeper. So again John 15: 10, 14: "If ye 
keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as 
I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in hi» 
love." "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command 

If, then, we do what Jesus commands us, is not that 
enough ? and shall we not be safe and sure of his love and 
the love of his Father ? But where did Jesus ever com- 
mand to keep the seventh day ? Nowhere. So Luke says 
he was taken up, "after that he through the Holy Ghost 
had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had 
chosen." Acts 1: 2. If Jesus gave commandments through 
the Holy Ghost, would they not be the commandments of 
God ? Are not these equal to those given through Moses ? 
Now hear Paul as to what are the commandments in tht 
gospel: "If any man think himself to be a prophet, 
or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I 
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. " 1 Cor. 
14: 37. 

Then all Paul's writings are "the commandments of 
God." And the Apostle says. Let those who are spiritual 
acknowledge it. Will our Seventh-day brethren acknowl- 
edge it? They may see a new meaning in "the command- 
ments of God," Rev. 14: 12, if they will. Again Paul 
says, "For yo know what commandments we gave you by 
the Lord Jesus," 1 Thess. 4: 2. Then the Apostles did give 
commandments by the authority of the Lord Jesus. Peter 
bears a similar testimony. 2 Peter 3: 2. "That ye may be 
mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holji 
prophets and of the commandments of us the apostles of 
the Lord and Savior." Entole^ the Greek word for com* 


raandment, occurs in the New Testament, in its singular and 
plural forms, sixty-eight times. In at least forty-eight of 
these cases it cannot mean the decalogue, and in over half of 
the others it is used in a general way. In not a single case 
is it certain that it means all the ten and nothing more. 
There is not a hint that it means the decalogue in an}^ one of 
the three passages where it occurs in Revelation. To claim 
that it does is to assume without evidence the very point to 
be proved. John, who wrote the book of Revelation, also 
wrote the gospel of John and the three epistles of John. 
He uses the word "commandments," plural and singular, 
twenty-eight times, and in not a single case does it refer to 
the ten commandments; but in nearly every case, if not in 
all, it refers to the commandments of Jesus. See John 14: 
15, 21; 15: 10; 1 John 2: 1-5; 3: 22-24; 4: 21; 5: 1-3. And 
naturally we would suppose that he means the same thing by 
commandments in Rev. 14: 12. 

As Christ is our "Lord and Master," John 13: 13, the 
"Head" of the church, Eph. 1:22; "All and in all," Col. 
3: 11; having "all power in heaven and in earth," Matt. 28: 
18; and is to judge the world, John 5: 22; at his judgment 
seat, Rom. 14: 10; how reasonable that he should give the 
laws to that church. This is just what he did do. Matt. 28, 
18-20; Acts 1: 1, 2. If any one wdll obey the teachings of 
Christ he need not fear about his salvation. 



For the convenience of the reader, we will arrange here 
in order an examination of all the prominent texts used by 
Seventh-Day Adventists on the Sabbath or the law. 
Where the text has been fully examined in the body of the 
work, we will refer to the chapter where it will be found. 

Gen. 2: 1-3. See Chapter XIII., page 249. 

Gen. 26: 5. Abraham kept the Sabbath. 

Abraham kept God's ' ' commandments and laws. " This 
was the ten commandments, therefore he kept the Sabbath. 
Answer: 1. They assume the very thing to be proved, viz: 
that this was the ten commandments. 2. This was 430 
years before the decalogue was given. Gal. 3: 16, 17. 
How could he keep what was not yet given ? 3. Anything 
which God commanded at anytime would be *'his com- 
mandments," and this would vary with circamstances- 
What Moses required is called ''God's commandments." 
Deut. 28: 1, 15. Says Paul, " What I write unto you are 
the commandments of the Lord." 1 Cor. 14: 37. " Sacri- 
fice to the Lord our God as he shall command us." Ex. 8: 
27. The Lord's directions to Noah about the ark were 
God's commandments. Gen. 6: 22. To circumcise was 
one of the commandments of God to Abraham, which he 
kept. Gen. 21: 4. So Abraham obeyed all God told him 
to do. Hence, this text has no reference to the ten com- 
mandments, nor to the Sabbath. 

Ex. 16: 23-30. See Chapter XHL, page 254. 



Sx. 20: 1-17. The decalogue. See Chapter XVIII. 

Ex. 31 : 13-17. The Sabbath forever. See page 259. 

Lev. 23. The 3'early Sablxaths. See Chapter XV. 

Lev. 23: 38. '' Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." 

It is claimed by Seventh-Da}- Adventists that the Lord 
here separates out the Sabbath from all other holy days, 
showing that it is of a different nature, in these words, 
verses 37, 38: ''Those are the feasts of the Lord: * * * 
beside the Sabbaths of the Lord." Yes, but read the whole 
verse, "Beside the Sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your 
gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your free-will 
offerings, which ye give unto the Lord." Not only the Sab- 
bath, but gifts, vows and offerings are also excepted with the 
Sabbath in the same verse. The idea is this: the Sabbath, 
the gifts, vo\vs and offerings are of regular wxekly or daily 
occurrence, w^hereas the other holy days and special offerings 
were to come only once a year at stated seasons. When 
these yearly offerings and holy days came at the same time 
of the regular daily or weekly service they were not to take 
the place of the regular daily and weekly services, but must 
be observed besides all these. Any one can see that this is 
the simple meaning of the words "beside the Sabbaths of 
the Lord, and beside your gifts," etc. The idea is not to 
distinguish the Sabbath above the other feasts, but to say 
that these must be kept in addition to the regular service of 
the Sabbath and the daily offerings. 

Deut. 31: 24-26. Two laws, one in the ark and another 
in the side of it. See Chapter XVII. , page 309. 

2 Kings 21: 8. Two laws. "If they will observe to do 
according to all that I have commanded them, and according 
to all the law that my servant Moses commanded them." 

It is claimed that this shows two laws, one given by God, 
the moral law, the decalogue; the other by Moses, the cere- 
monial, the one written in the book. Well, Moses in the 


book gave the law, " Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy 
heart," Deut. 6: 5, and "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as 
thyself," Lev. 19: 18. These, then, must be ceremonial ! 
No, there is no difference made between what God gave 
himself or gave by Moses. Indeed, the greatest command- 
ments of all he gave by Moses. Matt. 22: 36-40. 2 Kings 
21: 8, is loosely worded, that is all. Read the same text in 
2 Chron. 33: 8. "If only they will observe to do all that I 
have commanded them, even all the law and the statutes and 
the ordinances by the hand of Moses." Revised Version. 
That makes it plain. God gave them all by the hand of 
Moses. See also Neh. 8: 14. 

1 Chron. 16: 15-18. The decalogue for 1,000 generations. 

Adventists clairn that this covenant is the ten command- 
ments. Hence it was given to the patriarchs and must be 
kept for ages yet, as less than 200 generations have passed 
since Adam. So this law must continue at least 800 genera- 
tions yet. Answer: 1. The term "a thousand generations" 
is manifestly an expression meaning an indefinitely long 
time, not exactly 1000 generations, no more, no less. If the 
world must stand 800 generations yet, what becomes of Ad- 
ventism! So they can not take it literally themselves. 
Hence it may have ended ages ago. 2. As this is poetry, 
verse 7, the license of poetry is used. 3. The " covenant " 
here mentioned is not the covenant of ten commandments, 
for Moses says expressly that the fathers did not have the 
covenant of the decalogue. Deut. 5: 2, 4. But this cove- 
nant was made with Abraham. 1 Chron. 16: 16. 4. The 
covenant here referred to is God's promise to give Canaan to 
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. See verse 18. * 'Saying, unto 
thee will I give the land of Canaan." See Gen. 15: 18, 26: 
3; 28: 13. So it has no reference to the decalogue. 

Neh. 9: 13, 14. Two laws. 

God gave them one set of laws himself and then gave an- 


other set by Moses. Read it. Answer: It is true that one 
part of the law was given in one way and another part in 
another way. But this neither says nor intimates that there- 
fore they were different laws and of a different nature. See 
remarks on 2 Kings 21: 8. 

Ps. 19: 7. The law perfect 

Adventists constantly quote this text as proof that the ten 
commandments are a perfect law and hence could not be 

Ans^ver: An examination of this text will answer nine- 
tenths of all their law texts in the Bible. So we will make 
the answer here and refer to this from the other texts. The 
grand fallacy of all their arguments is the assumption that 
" the law " is just the ten commandments, nothing more, 
nothing less. Hence they ring the changes on " the law^^'' 
" the lavj^'^^ without end. But remember " the law " means 
the whole system of law given to the Jews on Sinai, includ- 
ing moral, civil and ceremonial precepts, sacrifices, priest- 
hood, circumcision, feasts, etc. Smith's Bible Dictionary, 
Art. Law, says that the law refers ''in nine cases out of ten 
to the Mosaic law, or to the Pentateuch. " Elder Butler con- 
fesses, ' ' The term ' the law, ' among the Jews generally in- 
cluded the five books of Moses." Law in Galatians, page 
70. Don't foro'et this fact and vou will have little trouble 
with Advent arguments on ^'the law." 

"The law," "the law of the Lord," and "the law of 
Moses," are all the same and include circumcision and sacri- 
fices. Proof: Luke 2: 22, 23, 24, 27; 2 Chron. 31: 3. Again: 
"The law," "the law of :Moses," "the book of the law," and 
"the law of God," are all the same. Proof: Neh. 8: ^ 2, 3, 
8, 14, 18. 

Now what is meant by " the law " and " the law of the 
Lord" in the Psalms ? It means all the law God gave Israel 
that whinh was written in the " book of the law." Pro^ ' 


David who wrote the Psalms was king of Israel. God re- 
quired the king to keep a copy of " the book of the law" 
always by him and read in it every day of his life. Deut. 
17: 15-19. The first Psalm refers to this: His " delight is 
in the law of the Lord; and in his law doth he meditate day 
and night. " Verse 2. David as king read the law of Moses 
every day and to this he refers all through the Psalms. Ad- 
ventists are constantly quoting Ps. 119 as meaning only the 
ten commandments. But "the law" here includes the whole 
law God gave Israel, moral,civil, ceremonial, all. Proof: Verse 
128. *'I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be 
right.'' David regarded God's precepts concerning tithes, 
sacrifices, feasts, public worship, moral duties, etc. ,as all right. 
Nine-tenths of " the law of the Lord" Seventh-Day Adven- 
tists do not pretend to keep any more than Sunday keepers 
do. If, then, we are law-breakers, so are they. 

It is probable that Ps. 19: 7, has a wider meaning than 
even the Mosaic law. The marginal reading is: "The 
doctrine of the Lord is perfect." Dr. Scott on this verse 
says: "The word here translated 'law' may be rendered 
doctrine^ and be understood as a general name for divine 
revelation, as then extant, the law of Moses being the prin- 
cipal part." Dr. Clarke, the Eclectic Commentary, and all 
I have consulted give the same interpretation. How nar- 
row and unauthorized, then, is the interpretation which con- 
fines this text to simply the decalogue. It is by such 
unnatural methods that the seventh day is sustained. 

Ps. 40: 8. The law in Jesus' heart. "Lo, I come. * * 
* Thy law is within my heart." 

This refers to Christ. Adventists say that Jesus kept the 
law, the ten commandments, and therefore we should. 
Answer. 1. See how they always assume that "the law" is 
just the decalogue. See this answered above on Ps. 19: 7. 
2. Jesus kept all the law of Moses, just as other Jews did 


r)o Adventists do it ? Do they keep the law as Jesus did ? 
No. Then their argument is a failure. 3. Jesus loved all 
the law and came to fulfill it. Matt. 5: IT; Luke 24: 44; 
and did fulfill it all at the cross. Acts 13: 29. Hence ^'Christ 
is the end of the law." Rom. 10: 4. 

Ps. 89: 27-36. God will not alter his covenant 

Seventh-Day Adventists claim a strong case here. The 
prophecy refers to Christ. If his disciples break God's law, 
statutes, or commandments, God will punish them. God 
will not break his covenant nor alter what went out of his 
lips, the decalogue. Aiiswer. Assumptions are easy and 
do for the uninformed. God's law is the whole law. See 
above on Ps. 19: 7. The covenant and what went out of 
God's lips has no reference to the decalogue, but refers to 
God's covenant with David to give him a son to sit on his 
throne. See verses 3, 4, 19, 33-35. This is too plain to be 
denied. Thus vanishes another of their grand proof texts. 

Ps. 119. The law exalted. 

Every verse in this long Psalm teaches the sacredness and 
perpetuity of the law. Answer. But the law is the whole 
Mosaic law which the king studied daily and which Israel was 
to keep. See my notes on Ps. 19: 7. Are Christians to keep 
that law ? No. Seventh-Day Adventists even don't keep it. 

Prov. 28: 9. Must not turn away from the law. 

He that turns away from the law, his prayer is abomina- 
tion. Those who break the Sabbath do this and God does 
not hear their prayers. Answer. Seventh-Day Adventists 
turn away their ears from nine-tenths of that law, for it 
embraces sacrifices, feasts, circumcision, etc., none of which 
they do. See my notes on Ps. 19: 7, for proof. So this text 
does them no good. 

Eccl. 12: 13, 14. The ten commandments cover the whole 
duty of man. ' 'Keep God's commandments, for this is the 
whole duty of man." 


These are just the ten commandments. Hence they are 
perfect. We need no other law. Being perfect it cannot 
be abrogated nor changed. All will be judged by it. Verse 
14. So say Seventh-Day Adventists. A^iswer. This is a 
soap bubble which vanishes with a touch. 1. Does it say 
that these are the ten commandments, no more, no less ? No, 
they assume this, for they have no proof of it. See my 
note on Gen. 26: 5, and Ps. 19: 7. The commandments are 
anything God has commanded on any subject. 2. Solomon, a 
king of Israel wrote this to Israel, 1,000 years before Christ. 
Did the decalogue cover the w hole duty of a man then ? 
Was it not a duty to pay tithes, keep the feasts, offer sacri- 
fices, be circumcised and a hundred other things about which 
the ten commandments are silent ? Certainly it was. Then 
they did not cover the whole duty of man, and this text is 
misapplied by Adventists. Nor does the decalogue cover 
all the duty of man now, nor a tithe of it. Where does it 
require us to visit the sick, the poor, the widow and orphans, 
to be sober, patient, and loving ? Nowhere. It is manifest, 
then, that the commandments here spoken of which did 
cover all man's duty, embraces all that God had commanded 
on all subjects, moral, civil, or religious. 3. That law has 
been fulfilled and ended at the cross. Eph. 2: 15; Gal. 3: 
19-25. Adventists themselves do not keep it. 

Isa. 42: 21. Jesus magnifies the law. 

"He will magnify the law and make it honorable." This 
is the decalogue. If Jesus magnified it he could not have 
abolished it; if he set it aside he would not have honored it. 
Ansiver. See the ready assumption again that "the law" is 
just the decalogue. Does it say so ? No. If the reader 
will bear in mind once for all that "the law" is the whole 
Mosaic code, he will easily dispose of all their proof texts 
Jesus did magnify the law; first, by carefully observing 
every precept of that law, both moral and ceremonial; 


second, by fulfillino^ all its predictions and types, thus accom- 
plishing the object for which it was given. Seventh-Day Ad- 
ventists themselves claim that Christ aboUshed the ceremonial 
law. Well, did he thereby belittle and dishonor that law ? 
They dare not say so. No, he magnified and honored it, as 
they must admit. Then a law can be honored and magni- 
fied, and yet set aside as having fulfilled its purpose. This is 
just what Christ did to the law as a whole. See my notes 
on Rom. 3: 31. 

Isa. 50, the Sabbath to be restored. See page 261. 

Isa. 58: 12, 13. The Sabbath restored. See Chapter 
XIII., page 262. 

Isa. 66^ 22, 23. The Sabbath in the New Earth. See 
Chapter XIIL, page 262. 

Ez. 22: 26. The breach in the law. See page 262. 

Dan. 7: 25. The pope to change the Sabbath. 

''He shall think to change times and laws." This refers 
to the pope. He was to change God's law, the decalogue. 
He changed the Sabbath and thus changed times. Answer^ 
1. It does not say that it was the decalogue; this they 
assume. 2. To change the fourth commandment and the 
Sabbath would change only one law and one time; but the 
prophecy says laws and times, both plural. This shows that 
the prophecy is of much wider scope than the}^ give it. 3. 
There is not a word of truth in the assertion that the pope 
changed the Sabbath. See Chap. XI of this book. So this 
application is false. 4. The old law was changed by Christ, 
not by the pope. Paul says: ''There is made of necessity 
a change also of the law." Heb. 7: 12. Many other scrip- 
tures declare plainly that Jesus fulfilled the law and ended 
it at the cross. Gal. 3: 19-25; Rom. 10: 4; Col. 2: 14-17. 
This prophecy applies during the gospel age and so refers 
to the law of Christ, not to the old law of Sinai which ended 
at the cross. So their theory is wholly false. 5. In a 


hundred ways the pope has fulfilled this prediction outside 
of the Sabbath by legislating for the church in many things 
contrary to the laws of Christ. The Jews' translation says 
he shall "change the festivals and the law." See the scores 
of festival days which the pope has made, as Ash Wednes- 
day, Holy Thursday, Good Friday, St. Patrick's Day, All 
Saint's Day, etc. This is what the prophecy means. Scott 
says: *'Has it not multiplied its holy days till scarcely four 
of the six Avorking days have been left?" Clarke says: 
"Appointing fasts and feasts, * * ^ new modes of 
worship, * -J^- * new articles of faith." This is what 
the prophecy foretold. It has no reference to the Sabbath. 

Matt. 5: 17-19. Till heaven and earth pass away. 

Jesus says he did not come to destroy the law, but to ful- 
fill it. And "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one 
tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." 
Whoever breaks any one of these commandments is guilty. 
This law is the decalogue. Jesus says that every jot and 
tittle of it will stand till heaven and earth pass away. This 
shows that this law is unchangeable and still binding. The 
Sabbath is a part of it and therefore the seventh day must 
still be kept. Answer. Seventh-Day Adventists consider 
this the strongest text in the New Testament for the law. 
They are constantly quoting it. If this fails, they have no 
stronger fort. I am sure it teaches no such thing as they 
claim. 1. Seventh Day Adventists themselves admit that 
Jesus fulfilled and ended what they called the ceremonial 
law. He abolished it at the cross. Well, did he come to 
destroy that law ? Certainly not, and yet he did it away. 
So, then, it is one thing to destroy a law, and quite another 
to bring it to a close by fulfilling it. He says he came to 
fulfill the law. 2. It does not say that every jot and tittle 
of the law Avill stand till heaven and earth pass away; but it 
does say that it will not pass away until it is all fulfilled. 


This teaches that it would all be fulfilled and pass away 
sometime. The idea is that sooner would heaven and earth 
pass away than one letter of the law would fail of being ful- 
filled. Luke's words make this matter very clear. "It is 
easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law 
to fail," Luke 16: 17. Here we cannot mistake the mean- 
ing; the idea is not the length of time the law is to last, but 
the certainty that it will not fail to be fulfilled. "Fulfilled" 
is defined thus by Webster: "To fill up, to make full or 
complete; to accomplish." The Greek word is Plarosai 
and is defined by Greenfield, among other things, "To ful- 
fill, to complete; to bring to a close, end, finish, complete." 
So Jesus did not come to destroy the law, but to finish it. 

The translation of Campbell, Macknight and Doddridge 
renders it: "Heaven and earth shall sooner perish than one 
iota or one tittle of the law shall perish without attaining 
its end." That is the idea exactly. Sawyer's translation 
says: "I am not come to destroy, but to complete." At the 
beginning of his ministry Jesus said he came to fulfill the 
law. After his resurrection he said: "These are the words 
which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all 
things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of 
Moses, and in the prophets, and the psalms, concerning me. " 
Luke 24: 44. And then Paul says: "And when they had 
fulfilled all that was written of him, they took him down 
from the tree." Acts 13: 29. So it was all fulfilled at the 
cross. Hence Paul says it was nailed to the cross. Col 2: 
14-16. "Christ is the end of the law." Rom. 10: 4. "The 
law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we 
might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, 
we are no longer under a schoolmaster." Gal. 3: 24, 25. 
What could be plainer than that the law ended at the cross ? 

3. The law here spoken of is not simply the decalogue, 
but the whole law of Moses. No candid man will deny this. 


All commentators and scholars admit it. The proof is 
abundant. Thus: " The law and the prophets was a cus- 
tomary phrase for the whole Old Testament." Whedon's 
Commentary (Methodist) on Matt. 5: 17. " By the law or 
prophets are meant the writings of the Old Testament in- 
cluding the five books of Moses called the law, and the writ- 
ing of the prophets or rest of the Old Testament." Notes 
on Matt. 5: 17 by George W. Clarke. "As everywhere else, 
so here the word nomos (law) refers to the whole law, and 
not merely to the decalogue." Lange's Com. on Matt. 5:17. 
"By ton 710771071 (the law) must be meant, in some sense, the 
law of Moses." Bloomfield's Notes on Matt. 5: 17. "THe 
law and the prophets summarily denote the whole Old Tes- 
tament revelation." Meyer's Commentary on Matt. 5: 17. 
"By the law and the prophets is here meant the Old Testa- 
ment in general." Bible Commentary. Dr. Albert Barnes 
says on this text: '•'•The law — the five books of Moses called 
the law. The prophets — the books which the prophets wrote. 
These two divisions here seem to comprehend the Old Testa- 
ment." So all commentators. 

The Jewish scriptures were divided into the "book of the 
law," which included the five books of Moses, and the 
"book of the prophets," which included the books written 
by the prophets, as the historical books, etc. Sometimes a 
third division was recognized, viz: the Psalms, or poetical 
books. I have before me the Jews' Bible which is divided 
that way. Portions from the book of the law and also from 
the prophets were read in the synagogues every Sabbath. 
This division of the Old Testament is often referred to in the 
New Testament. Paul says: "All things which are written 
in the book of the law." Gal. 3: 10. Again: "It is writ- 
ten in the book of the prophets." Acts 7: 42. Once more: 
"After the reading of the law and the prophets." Acts 13: 
15. Hence " the law and the prophets " became a common 


term for the whole Old Testament. The law was the five 
books of Moses. Read a few texts : " This is the law and 
the prophets." Matt. 7: 12. "All the law and the prophets 
prophesied mitil John." Matt. 11: 13. Here the law can 
not mean just the decalogue, for the law prophesied. " On 
these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. " 
Matt. 22: -10. "The law and the prophets were until John." 
" They have Moses and the prophets," '' If they hear not 
Moses and the prophets." Luke 16: 16, 29, 31. Here the 
law and the prophets is the same as Moses and the prophets. 
"Him of whom Moses is the law and the prophets did write." 
John 1: 45. "Beginning at Moses and all the prophets," 
"which was written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, 
and in the Psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:27, 44. "All 
things written in the law and in the prophets." Acts 25:14. 
" Which the prophets and Moses did say." Acts 26:22. 
Paul preached " out of the law of Moses and out of the 
prophets." Acts 28:23. "Witnessed by the law and the 
prophets." Rom. 3: 21. See how common this phrase was 
then for the whole Old Testament. Hence Jesus said, " I 
am not come to destroy the law or the prophets." Matt. 
8: 17. In the light of the above facts any one can see that 
Jesus here meant the whole Old Testament the same as in 
all the other texts. 

In proof of this, notice that he mentions various parts of 
the law — murder, altar, gift, adultery, swearing, eye for an 
eye, divorce, love to enemies, etc., verses 21-43. Is all this 
in the decalogue ? No, it is in the book of the law. 

It is absurd to say that he meant only the decalogue and 
the prophets. This would leave out the books of Moses en- 
tirely. So, then, the law here is the whole law of Moses. 
Now if every jot and tittle of that law is binding till the end 
of the world, then we have the whole Je^vish law to keep as 
ivell as the Sabbath. This shows the fallacy of the Seventh- 


Day Adventists' position. The simple truth is that Christ 
fulfilled the law and it passed away after serving its purpose. 

Matt. 19: 16-22. The commandments to be kept. 

The young man asks what to do to have eternal life. 
Jesus said, ' 'Keep the commandments. " When asked which, 
he said, Do not murder, nor commit adultery, nor steal, 
nor bear false witness; honor father and mother and love your 
neighbor as yourself. Here Jesus teaches that we must keep 
the commandments to have life. He then quotes five of the 
ten showing that to be the law he meant. The Sabbath is a 
part of that law, hence we must keep it. 

Answer: 1. It is noticeable that Jesus omits the Sab- 
bath not only here but on all other occasions like it. 2. Of 
course no one could gain eternal life and break the command- 
ments which Jesus mentioned. 3. And it is manifest he 
did not mention all the commandments which m.ust be kept. 
4. If it is said that in quoting a part of the decalogue, he 
thereby implied and endorsed the whole of it as binding, then 
we reply that by quoting a part of the law of Moses he thereby 
bound all the rest of that law upon us also. The command 
to love your neighbor is not in the decalogue but in ''the 
book of the law." So in Mark 10- 19, he quotes "defraud 
not" from Lev. 19: 13, the law of Moses. Is then all the 
Levitical law binding on us because Jesus quoted a part of 
it ? No. Then it by no means follows that the whole of a 
law is binding on us because Jesus quotes a part of it to a 
young man still under that law. We object to swallowing 
a whole ox because we are told that a piece of the flesh is 

We should remember that at this time both Jesus and the 
young man were still under the law. Jesus often adapted 
his instructions to the time and circumstances. To the 
cleansed leper, Jesus said, "Go thy way, show thyself to 
the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded." Matt 


8: L Shall we apply this to Christians now and conclude 
that they must ofler gifts according to Moses ? Of course 
not, for he was yet under the law and we are not. Again 
Christ said, ''The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' 
seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that 
observe and do." Matt. 23: 2, 3. 

Here they were directed to observe every item of the 
Mosaic law just as the Pharisees taught. \Yhy don't Advent- 
ists quote that to prove we must keep the Sabbath, for it 
certainly included the Sabbath ? This shows that Christ's 
directions about keeping the Jewish law were to those still 
under the law and not for all time to come. Li is noticeable 
that Jesus never stated directly that any of the old law would 
be abolished, not even the sacrifices, the temple-service, cir- 
cumcision, etc. The time had not come; the people were 
not yet ready for it. 

So this young Pharisee came as one looking to the law 
and his own deeds for righteousness. "What good thing 
shall I do that I may have eternal life ?" Jesus answered 
him according to his question and according to his duty un- 
der the law, that law to which he was looking for salvation. 
"Thou knowest the commandments," do these, for the law 
said, "The man that doeth them shall live in them." Gal. 3: 
12. It is evident that Jesus did this to take the conceit out 
of him and to show him his need of something better. He 
succeeded, for the young man went away sorrowful and 

Matt. 24: 20. The Sabbath A. D. 70. See Chapter 
XIV., page 270. 

Matt. 28: 1. "The Sabbath" still after the cross. See 
Chapter XIV., page 272. 

Mark 2: 27. The Sabbath for man. See page 269. 

Luke 23: 5-6. The women kept the Sabbath. See Chap- 
ter XIV., page 273. 


Acts 13: 14; 18: 4, etc. Paul kept the Sabbath. See 
Chapter XIV., page 278. 

Rom. 3: 31. The law established. 

^'Do we then make void the law through faith ? God for- 
bid, yea, we establish the law." The law is the ten com- 
mandments. It is not abolished but established. This is a 
positive statement that the law is still binding under the 
gospel. The Sabbath is a part of the law and therefore 
must be kept. 

Answer: 1. A few isolated texts cannot be interpreted to 
conflict with the general tenor, and many direct statements 
of the New Testament that we are not under the law but 
that it ceased at the cross. 2. There is nothing in the text 
or context that says or intimates that it is the decalogue only 
of which Paul speaks. 3. Paul has argued through these 
three chapters that no one has ever kept the law, neither 
Gentiles nor Jews. So he reasons that no one can be justified 
by *'the law of works," but all can be justified "by the law 
of faith." Chap. 3: 27. Then he "concludes that a man 
is justified by faith without the deeds of the law." Verse 
28. Then he anticipates that some one will object that he is 
an Antinomian, setting aside all law. 'Verse 31. This he 
denies. Because the Jewish law is abrogated, it by no means 
follows that all law is abolished. So he says: "Do we then 
nullify law through the faith ? By no means, but we estab- 
lish law." Diaglott. This is a literal translation of the 
Greek and gives the idea correctly. Paul does not say the 
law, but simply law in general. The definite article the is 
not used before law in the original. Hence in this verse we 
understand Paul to speak of law in general and not of "the 
law" of Sinai. Here are other reliable translations of the 
text, giving the same idea. "Do we then make void law 
through the faith? Far be it, yea, we establish law." 
American Bible Union Translation. "Do we, then, make 


law useless through the faith ? By no means, but we estab_ 
lish law." Campbell, Macknight and Dodriclge. "Do we, 
then, make law of none effect through faith? God forbid; 
nay, we estabHsh law." Revised Version, marginal read- 
ing. The marginal reading in this Version where it differs 
from the authorized text as it does here, was supported by 
two-thirds of the learned translators present at the last read- 
ing. (See their preface.) This, then, is well supported. 

Hence this text does not speak of the decalogue, nor even 
of the Mosaic law, but of law in the abstract. Paul affirms 
that faith in Christ does not nullify the use of law. This is 
exactly what I believe. God's great moral law remains un- 
changed through all ages, while particular expressions of 
that law adapted to local circumstances as was the Jewish law, 
may be changed. 

If it be insisted that this must be the law given to the 
Jews, then we reply: The law would be the whole Mosaic 
law, not the decalogue alone. Dr. Adam Clarke gives a 
sufficient answer to the Adventists: "By law here we may 
understand the whole of the Mosaic law in its rites and 
ceremonies, of which Jesus Christ was the subject and the 
end. All that law had respect to him, and the doctrine of 
faith in Jesus Christ, which the Christian religion proclaimed, 
established the very claims and demands of that law, by 
showing that all was accomplished in the passion and death 
of Christ." On Rom. 3: 31. So this text in noway favors 
the Adventist idea, though it is their main hope. 

Rom. 6: 14, 15. "NOT UNDER THE LAW." 

Several times Paul says directly that Christians are "not 
under the law." See Rom. 6: 14, 15; Gal. 3: 23-25; 4: 21; 
5: 18. It would seem as though that ought to settle it that 
Christians are not to be governed by that law: for surely if 


we are not under a law we are under no obligation to obey 
it. Living in Michigan, I am under the law of this state; 
but I am not under the law of England, hence it has no 
claim on me. So if we are not under the law it has no 
claims on us. In opposition to the plain meaning of this 
term, Seventh-Day Aventists say that it means that we are 
not under the curse or condemnation of the law. But Paul 
does not say that we are not under the curse of the law; but 
it is the law itself that we are not under. Every text where 
the term occurs shows that it means under the authority of 
the law. 

This subject is so plain that Seventh-Day Adventists them- 
selves are divided over it, one party writing against the 
other. Elder Waggoner leads one party and Elder Butler 
the other. I quote from Butler against Waggoner in ' ' The 
Law in Galatians," pages 51, 52. '' But it is thought that 
in this verse (Gal. 3: 23) the expression 'under the law' must 
refer to the sinner under the condemnation of the moral law. 
Lengthy arguments have been made in support of this; but 
we fail to see evidence to prove this position." Then he ad- 
mits to the other party that ' ' under the law " sometimes 
means under its condemnation though this is not its primary 
meaning. He had to say this to save himself on other texts, 
but I deny that it ever has that meaning. He continues: 
"We read in Matt. 8: 9, of a man under authority having 
soldiers under him, i. e., authority was over him and he was 
in authority over the soldiers, and each was to obey; not 
that he was under the condemnation of authority, or the sol- 
diers under his condemnation. ^ * * The very nature 
of the expression itself signifies this, 'under the law' simply 
meaning the law being above or having authority over the 
persons who were under it. This is the primary, simplest 
meaning of the term; and unless strong reasons can be ad- 
duced to the contrary, we sheul-d aJways give the expression 


this signification.'" "Greenfield * * * gives no instance 
where it is used in the sense of being snliject to the condem- 
nation of the law." "We are no longer under a pedagogue 
[the law], i. e., no longer under his authority; his authority 
is no lonirer over us because his office ceased w'hen the seed 
came." So writes Elder Butler, and he states the truth: but 
he tries to limit this to the ceremonial law. Here he fails, 
for it is "the law," not a part of it. 

Here is wdiat the lexicons say of the word imder: " In 
relation to something that governs. In a state of subjection; 
subject." Webster. Under is from the Greek word "Awjt?*?," 
which is thus defined: "Of subjection to a law. Rom 6:14. " 
Greenfield: " To express subjection;" " under his sway;" 
"under its guidance;" "subject to." Liddell and Scott. 
"Subject to." Groves Gr. and Eng Diet. "Under subjec- 
tion to, Rom. 14." Bagster's Gr. Lex. So all the authori- 
ties I have consulted define "under" to mean under the au- 
thority of, subject to. Now Paul says, " Ye are not under 
the law," Rom. 6: 14; that is, not under its authority, not 
subject to it. This is plain enough. 

Turning to the commentators, I read : " Under the law; 
in subjection to it." Clarke on Gal. 4: 4. " Subject to the 
law," " Bound by its requirements." Barnes on Gal. 4: 4. 
"Not under the law; not under a legal dispensation." 
American Tract Society, notes on Rom. 6:14. " Under the 
law, under the legal dispensation." Scott on Gal. 3: 23-25. 

Thus all agree that " under the law " means subject to its 
authority. But w^e are not under the law, not under its au 
thority. Read a few texts as to its meaning. " Edom r© 
volted from under the hand of Judah." 2 Kings 8: 20. 
"Israel went out from under the hand of the Syrians." 2 
Kings 13: 5. "Ye purpose to keep under the children of 
Judah." 2 Chron. 28:10. In every case it means under the 
authority of. Again : "A man under authority, having 


soldiers under me," Matt. 8: 9. "Ye are not under the law, 
but under grace." Rom. 6:14. **And unto the Jews I be- 
came as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are 
under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that 
are under the law." "To them that are without law, as 
without law (being not without law to God, but under the 
law to Christ), that I might gain them that are without law." 
1 Cor: 9: 20-21. 

This passage shows beyond a doubt what Paul means by 
** under the law." The Jews were under the law. When 
with them he did as they did to gain them. He kept the 
law as they did. See for proof Acts 16: 3, where he circum- 
cised Timothy, and Acts 21: 20-26, where he shaved his head 
and offered offerings. Those without law were the Gentiles 
who were never under the Jewish law. When with them he 
lived as they did to gain them. He did not keep the Mosaic 
law. But Paul is careful to add that he was under the law 
to Christ, or more correctly, " Under law to Christ. '^ 
Revised Version. "Under Chrisfs law." Diaglott. "Under 
the law of the Messiah. " Syriac. "Under the law of Christ. '^ 
Clarke. "The law enjoined of Christ." Barnes. Paul 
says he was under Christ's law. Does he mean that he was 
condemned by the law of Christ? Surely not; but he was 
under its authority. 

Again: "But before faith came, we were kept under the 
Jaw, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be re- 
vealed. Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring 
us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But 
after that faith is come, we are no longer under a school- 
master." Gal. 3: 23-25. 

When were people under the law ? Before Christ came. 
Are they under it now ? No. This shows what Paul means 
— a change of dispensations changed their relations to the 
law. Before Christ, under the law; since Christ, not under it 


Before Christ came they were under the law a8 a teacher 
who was preparing them for the great Teacher. When 
Christ came they were no longer under that old schoolmaster, 
the law. Proceeding with his argument, Paul says : '' But 
when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his 
Son, made of a woman, made under the law." Gal. 4: 4. 
This again is decisive as to the meaning of ''under the law." 
Christ was bom under the law, that is, subject to the law 
the same as any Jew. He carefully obeyed that law till it 
was abolished at His cross. He certainly was not born 
under the condemnation of the law, for he was without sin. 
To the Galatians who were going back to the observance of 
the law Paul says: " Tell me, ye that desire to be under 
the law, do ye not hear the law ?" Gal. 4: 21. Did they de- 
sire to be under the curse of the law? Nonsense. They 
desired to obey the law just as Adventists do now. Finally 
Paul says to them, "If ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not 
under the law." Gal. 5: 18. If they accepted Christ, they 
had no further need for the old law. So, then. Christians 
are not under the authority of the law for it was nailed to 
the cross. On this point Dr. Adam Clarke forcibly says : 
"Under the law: In subjection to it, that in Him, all its de- 
signs might be fulfilled, and by His death, the whole might 
be abolished, the law dying when the son of God expired 
upon the cross." On Gal. 4: 4. 

That "under the law" means subject to the authority of 
the law is plainly proven by Rom. 3: 19. "Now we know 
that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who 
are under the law." The Jew readily admitted that all the 
Gentiles were sinners; but the point was to prove that the 
Jews themselves were also sinners. So in verses 10-18 be 
makes several quotations from their scripture, saying that, 
"There is none righteous, no, not one," etc. "Now," says 
Paul, * 'you cannot apply this tG the Gentiles, for it is in your 


own law, and we know that a law speaks to those who are 
subject to it and not to those who are not. So it must mean 
that not one of you Jews are righteous. Hence, as ail the 
Gentiles are sinners, and this proves that all Jews are sin- 
ners too, therefore all the world are guilty." Again Paul 
argues that the law speaks only to "those who are under 
the law. " But does the law speak only to those who are 
condemned by it ? That is false and absurd. To every man 
in Michigan our law says, ^ 'you shall not steal, " whether they 
have stolen or not. So the Mosaic law was addressed to all 
the Jews. "Hearken, O Israel, unto the statutes and unto 
the judgments which I teach you."" Deut. 4: 1. Who was 
to hearken to that law ? All Israel, for it spoke to them 
all. This fact was so manifest that Paul said, "Now we 
know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them 
who are under the law." What, then, does he mean by un- 
the law ? He means under the authority of the law, subject 
to the law, and this is what it always means. But Paul says 
over and over that Christians "are not under the law." 

But Adventists immediately exclaim, ' 'Then, if we are not 
under the law, we can sin all we like, can steal, lie, kill, 
etc." They never seem to notice that this is precisely what 
the Judaizers, the opponents of Paul, said against his doc- 
trine back there. He states their objection and answers it. 
"Ye are not under the law, but under grace. What then? 
shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under 
grace? God forbid." Rom. 6:14, 15. 

The fact that it was objected to Paul that his doctrine of 
the law gave license to sin shows that he did set aside the 
authority of the law. If not, why was this objection made 
to his doctrine ? The Jews believed in the pardon of sin as 
fctrongly as Paul did. So if he merely taught that the sia^ 
ner was pardoned by grace so that he was no longer under 
tiie condemnation of the law, the Jew would agree with him, 


for they all believed in the pardon of sins. The fact that this 
objecti'on was raised to PauPs position on the hiw the same 
as it is to our position now, shows that we have interpreted 
him correctly. 

Rom. 7. The law is holy. 

Verse 12. "Wherefore the law is holy and the com- 
mandment holy, and just and good." This is the decalogue 
as shown by verse 7. As late as A. D. 60, Paul said it was 
holy, just, good, and spiritual, verse 14, and that he de- 
lighted in it, verse 22. Certainly then it was not abolished. 

Answer: Whoever has access to Dr. Clarke's Commen- 
tary on this chapter will find the Seventh-Day Adventist 
at'gument fully and finely answered. I will note but a few 

Paul had just stated that we are not under the law. Chap. 
6: 14. Now he illustrates it. A woman is bound to her 
husband as long as he lives. She is under his law, his au- 
thority. If he dies, ^'sbeisfree from thatlsLW."^^ Verse 3. 
This is not the law of the state, nor the moral law, nor the 
law of Moses, but it is "the law of her husband," Verse 2, 
as Paul distinctly says. That law under which she has been 
living dies with her husband and she is freed from it, no 
longer bound to do his will, but is free to give herself to 

Just so the Jew^s had been held under the authority of 
the Mosaic law. That he writes this to the Jewish believers 
at Rome is proved by the first verse. "I speak to them that 
know the law." 

But the law died and so the connection between them was 
dissolved and its authority was ended. This is Paul's con- 
clusion as stated by himself: ''But now we are delivered 
from the law, that being dead wherein we were held." 

"Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the 
law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to 


another, even to him who is raised from the dead. " Verses 
4, 6. No statement could be plainer: we are delivered from 
the law which is dead. And we are dead to the law. Now 
we can be married to Christ. Says Dr. Albert Barnes on 
verse 4: ' ' The idea there is, that death dissolves a connection 
from which obligation resulted. This is the single point of 
the illustration. It is an error to make everything in this 
illustration fit something in the case of the Roman church. 
Like all parables, it has just one object and that is to show 
the dissolution of a connection before existing, the end of 
an authority once in force. The Jewish believers were once 
under the Mosaic law. That law is dead and they are freed 
from its authority. Now they can accept the authority of 
another, the Lord Jesus. " Says Dr. Clarke: ^^ As long as 
he livetk. Or as long as it liveth: law does not extend its 
influence to the dead, nor do abrogated laws hind. It is all 
the same whether we understand the words as speaking of a 
law abrogated^ so that it cannot command; or of its objects 
being dead so that it has none to bind. In either case the law 
has no force." Surely the subject is clear enough if we 
want to understand it. 

Viewed in the light of its many excellent precepts, the 
law was holy, just and good and even spiritual; yet failing 
to accomplish man's salvation it was superceded by a better 
system which does what it could not do. 

Rom. 14: 5. One day above another. See page 297. 

1 Cor. 7: 19. The commandments to be kept. 

Paul says we must keep "the commandments of God," that 
is the ten commandments. Answer: See how they always 
assume just what they ought to prove, viz., that this is the 
decalogue. Now let Paul in the same letter explain what he 
means by the commandments of God. "The things that 1 
write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. " 1 Cor. 
14: 37. So this has no reference to the decalogue. 


2 Cor. 3. The ministration of death done away. See 
Chapter XIX., page 356. 

Galatians 3: 19. The added law. 

"The law was added because of transgression." This was 
the ceremonial law added to the moral law. Hence the law 
done away in Galatians is only the ceremonial law. Answer. 
This is what one party of the Seventh-Day Adventists says, 
while another part}' sa^'S that it is all the moral law and not 
done away at all! So they warmly contradict each other. 
But, 1. There is nothing said about any such distinction as 
moral and ceremonial laws in all the book. 

2. We have proved that there is no such distinction in all 
the Bible. 

3. All through Galatians it is "^A^" law without an intima- 
tion that there was another law from which it was to be dis- 
tinguished. 27ie law was the whole law. Even Elder 
Butler admits this. Hear him: ''The term 'the law' among 
the Jews generally included the five books of Moses, thus 
including the whole system, moral, ritual, typical and civil. 
This as a system these Judaizing teachers desired to main- 
tain." Again: "There are no doubt, several references to 
the moral law in the epistle." Law in Galatians, pages 70, 
15. Good: that ends the matter; Galatians treats of the whole 

4. That the moral law, as they call it, is included in "the 
law" is easily proved. Gal. 3: 10, includes "all things 
which are written in the book of the law." That book con- 
tained the ten commandments. Butler admits this. "The 
book of the law * * * contained both the moral and 
ceremonial laws." Law in Galatians, page 39. Again: 
•'Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal. 
3: 13. This is the moral law, for there was no curse to the 
ceremonial law. This point is hard for them to meet. But- 
ler makes this confession; "We are perfectly willing to ad- 


mit that the curse brought to view in the text, from which 
Christ redeems his people, principally includes transgressions 
of the moral law." Law in Galatians, page 40. This gives 
up the whole case. In GaL 5: 14, Paul quotes as "the 
law," ''Thou shalt love thy neighbor." If any law is moral 
this is. 

5. Now read carefully Gal. 3: 15-19, and see that the law 
was added to the promise made to Abraham. "Was added to 
the promise," Wesley's Notes. So all their talk about this 
being the ceremonial law added to the moral law is a fallacy. 
It is the whole law and it all ended at Christ. Gal. 3: 19-24. 

Eph. 2: 14, 15. The law of ordinances. 

This shows that only the ceremonial law was abolished. 
Answer: As the ceremonial precepts of the law were the 
greater part of it, and as it was largely on their account that 
the law was abolished as a burdensome system, they are 
naturally mentioned as the reason why it was abolished. In 
giving the cause for a man's death we naturally mention the 
diseased parts, though the whole man died. We say that 
Brown died of heart disease. Then Smith reports that all 
that is dead of Brown is his heart! That is a fair illustra- 
tion of the Adventists argument on several texts. The 
apostles say that the law is dead, died of types, shadows 
and carnal ordinances. Then the Adventists report that 
only apart of the law is dead, just the most diseased parts 
and these have been amputated ! Selah ! Adventists say 
that there are no ' ' ordinances " in the ten commandments, 
hence this can not apply to them. But this is a mistake. 
What is an ordinance? Webster says: 1. "An ordaining or 
establishing by authority; appointment. 2. A rule estab- 
lished by authority; a statute, law, edict, decree." This is 
exactly what the decalogue was, a law established by au- 
thority. Cruden's Concordance says: "Ordinance. 1. 
" Any decree, statute or law, made by civil governors. 2. 


The laws, statutes, and commandments of God." So then 
the statutes, laws and commandments of God are ordi- 
nances; specially was this true of the Sabbath to be kept on 
the seventh day. This depended wholly and only upon God's 
appointment ; hence it w^as surely an ordinance, and so 
passed away with those ordinances. 

Col. 2: 14-16. Nailed to the cross. See Chapter XV. 

The Law in the Book of Hebrews. 

It is claimed by Adventists that the law which is here 
so distinctly said to have been " changed," '' disannulled," 
etc., is only the ceremonial law. Ansiver: 1. Not a word 
is said about a ceremonial law^ or that it is a particular one 
of two laws that is meant. It is simply " ^Ad" law without 
any qualification. If this tw^o law doctrine was as clear to 
the apostles and as important as it is with Adventists, it is 
strange that they should not somewhere, at least once, say so 
plainly. But they don't. They just say " the " law and go 
right on. 2. The decalogue is distinctly referred to several 
times in this book, as in Chap, 8: 9, " the covenant," (See 
Deut. 4: 13) *' the tables of the covenant," Chap. 9: 4, and 
the giving of the ten commandments on Mount Sinai. Chap. 
12: 18-21. Hence the book does refer to the whole law. 

James 2: 8-12. Every point of the law binding. 

James quotes two precepts from the ten and says we must 
keep the whole law of which the Sabbath is a part. Answer: 
1. Again we remind the reader that " the law " is all the 
law given to the Jews, of which the decalogue is only a part. 
So if '' the law " is binding now, then we must keep it all, 
sacrifices, feast days, etc. 2. If all the decalogue is binding 
because James quotes a part of it, then all the law of Moses 
is binding too, because he also quotes from that, verse 8, 
''Thou shalt love thy neighbor." This is from Lev. 19: 18. 
Is that whole chapter binding now? 3. James quoted so 
much as was applicable to his subject, either from the deca* 


logue or from the other books, without thereby binding 
either upon us. 4. *'The law of liberty," verse 12, is the 
law of the New Testament. Wesley says: "Law of liberty 
— the gospel." Notes on verse 12. Adam Clarke says : 
"The law of liberty, the gospel of Jesus Christ." On verse 
12. Every quotation in this text is taken from the words 
of Christ in the gospels. See Matt. 19 : 18, 19. 

1 John 2: 3-6. This is the ten commandments. 

So Adventists always apply it, and then make all liars who 
do not keep the seventh day. Answer: 1. Does it say 
that these are the ten commandments ? This, as usual, is 
assumed. 2. The context plainly shows that the command- 
ments of Christ are meant. Read verses 1 to 5 and notice 
that it is Christ who is spoken of. Hence " his command- 
ments" are Christ's commandments. There is no reference 
to the decalogue. 

1 John 3: 4. Sin is the transgression of the law. 

From this text Seventh-Day Adventists claim that all sins 
of every kind are a violation of the ten commandments 
which is the law here meant. Answer: 1. Does it say that 
this law is the ten commandments ? No, nor any hint of 
such a thing. Here, as ever, they assume the very thing to 
be proved. 2. The decalogue was not given till Moses, 
2500 years after the creation. Ex. 20. Deut. 5: 2-6. But 
sin existed all that time. The angels sinned, 2 Pet. 2: 4; 
Adam sinned, Rom. 5: 12; the Sodomites sinned. Gen. 13: 
13; "the Gentiles which have not the law," Rom. 2: 12-14, 
sinned; hence sin is something more than a violation of the 
decalogue. A neglect to do good is sin, James 4: 17, but 
that would not violate the decalogue. Unbelief is sin, Rom. 
14: 23, but that is no transgression of the decalogue. So, 
many are damned because they neglected to feed the hungry, 
give drink to the thirsty, take in the stranger, clothe the 
aaked, or visit the sick, Matt. 25: 41-43, none of which are 


mentioned in the decalogue. John says, "All unrighteous^ 
ness [unrightness, wrong] is sin." 1 John 5: 17. There 
are scores of wrongs which the decalogue does not notice 
at all. 3. The decalogue ended at the cross, 2 Cor. 
3: 7; Rom. 10: 4, so it can not condemn sin now. 4. In 
the original of 1 John 3: 4, the word law does not occur at 
all. Thus: " Sin is lawlessness," Revised Version. " Sin 
is iniquity," Diaglott. "All sin is iniquity," Syriac. "Sin 
is wickedness," Sawyer's Translation. " Sin is the lawless- 
ness," literal Greek. This is the correct idea. So a correct 
translation entirely spoils this text for Adventists. It simply 
affirms that all sin is iniquity, wickedness or lawlessness, a 
disregard of law, without any necessary reference to the 

1 John 3: 22. The ten commandments again. 

The same old assumption again, viz. , that ' 'the command- 
ments" are always the ten commandments. But the next 
verse explodes this hobby by naming what is meant. "And 
this is his commandment, That we should believe on the 
name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he 
gave us commandment." This is not the decalogue at all. 

Rev. 12: 17. The remnant keep the commandments. 

This text shows that the remnant, the last state of the 
church, will keep the ten commandments, hence the Sabbath. 
Answer. 1. This occurs under the dragon^ which Seventh- 
Day Adventists say is Pagan Rome. But Pagan Rome 
passed away more than 1,300 years ago, as they admit. So 
this applies ages ago, not to the present. 2. Does it say 
that "the commandments" are the ten commandments ? 
No, nor is there anything to intimate it. They assume this as 
usual. 3. Time and again, all through the New Testament, 
other things are called "the commandments." Thus the two 
"great commandments," Matt. 22: 36-40, the precepts of 
Christ: John 14: 15, 21; 15: 10; 13: 34; Acts 1: 2; the Teach- 


ings of the apostles, 1 Cor. 14: 37; 1 ThesSc 4: 2; 2 Pet. 8: 
2, etc. It is far more probable that these are referred to in- 
stead of the old law which was abolished. 

Rev. 14: 12. See notes on Chap. 12: 17, above. 

Rev. 22: 14. Do his commandments. 

1. If the common version is correct, the remarks on 
Rev. 12: 17, will apply here the same. 2. But in the cor- 
rect reading there is nothing said about the commandments. 
The revised version gives it thus: '^Blessed are they that 
wash their robes." So the American Bible Union, the 
Diaglott, etc. Hence this text has no bearing on the 

Thus we have examined every text from Gensis to Revela- 
tion on which Sabbatarians rely for the perpetuity of the law 
and the Sabbath. 1. To say the very least, all these texts are 
capable of a different interpretation from what they give 
them; they do not necessarily mean what Adventists say. 2. 
I feel confident that we have fairly and conclusively proved 
that they do not teach what Adventists claim. 

For myself, I feel profoundly impressed that the Sab- 
batarian theory is built all the way through upon a narrow, 
forced, and unnatural interpretation of the Bible, one thai 
cannot stand the test of fair criticism. The more I study it 
the more apparent these facts become to me. I am devoutij' 
thankful to God that he has led me out of that error. 



On this subject I shall make only a brief argument, sim- 
ply calling attention to some of the main points. 

That man's spirit survives the death of his body, and lives 
in a conscious state, has been so generally believed by all 
people in all ages that we may fairly call it universal. In 
this, the most barbarous and the most enlightened nations 
have agreed. Nor has the increasing intelligence of the ad- 
vancing generations lessened this belief, but rather has con- 
firmed it. The most profound thinkers of the race have 
held this faith. Though this fact is not decisive, yet it does 
have much weight. 

So this doctrine has been the universal faith of the Chris- 
tian church in all ages. The exceptions to this have been 
few and always regarded as heretical. This fact is justly 
entitled to great weight. It should not be lightly regarded. 

The Jews who had for so many ages enjoyed the benefits 
of God's revelations, also believe that the spirit lived after 
the death of the body. 

The Apocrypha gives the views of the Jews just before 
the time of Christ. Here are a few verses: The wicked 
shall '^endure eternal torture by fire " 4 Maccab. 9: 9. "The 
divine vengeance is reserving you for eternal fire and 
torments, which shall cling to you for all time." Chap. 12: 
12. • "Let us not fear him who thinketh be killeth; for great 
is the trial of soul and danger of eternal torment laid up for 
those who transgress." Chap. 13: li. Of the martyrs it is 



said: ^'Through which also they now stand beside the divine 
throne, and live a blessed life." Chap„ 17: 18. ''The chil- 
dren of Abraham, with their victorious mother, are assem- 
bled together to the choir of their fathers, having received 
pure and immortal souls from God." Chap. 18: 23. "The 
tja^ant Antiochus was both punished upon earth and is 
punished now he is dead." Verse 5. 

These plainly show that the Jews believed in the immor- 
tality of the soul, the conscious state of the dead, and eternal 

So the Jewish historian, Josephus, who lived when Paul 
did, plainly states that the body of the Jews believed in the 
immortality of souls. Of the Pharisees he says: 

"They also believe that souls have an immortal vigor in 
them." Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 1. Again: " They 
say that all souls are incorruptible: but that the souls of 
good men only are removed into other bodies: but that the 
souls of bad men are subject to eternal punishment." Wars, 
Book 2, Chapter 8. Of another Jewish sect, the Essens, he 
says : "They teach the immorality of souls." Antiq., 
Book 18, Chap. 1. Further: "Their doctrine is that bodies 
are corruptible and that the matter they are made of is not 
permanent; but that the souls are immortal and continue 
forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and 
are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are 
drawn by a certain natural enticement. But that when they 
are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released 
from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upwards." Wars, 
Book 2, Chap. 8. Of the Sadducees he says: "But the doc- 
trine of the Sadducees is that souls die with the bodies." 
Antiq., Book 18, Chap. 1. Again: "They also take away 
the belief of the immortal duration of the soul and the pun- 
ishments and rewards in Hades." Wars, Book 2, Chap. 8. 

Jo8ep^»us s»vs muob nnore m ^W j^-^rpp i'*^e, so that t^ere 


can be no doubt as to the belief of the Jews at that time, for 
he was one of them and knew well their doctrines. He says 
that they believed in the immortality of the soul, the con- 
scious state of the dead, and eternal punishment. The efforts 
of annihilationists to deny this are uncandid and futile. 


The early Christian church held to the same doctrine. 
The martyrs are represented at death as going immediately 
to heaven. "They hastened to Christ," says Eusebius, Eccl. 
Hist. Book 5, Chap. 1. He says that another at death "re- 
ceived the crown of immortality." Same chapter. Again: 
"With peace they departed to God." Book 5, Chap. 2. 
Of one who died at the same time with another he says that 
it was "to attach himself to the former as his companion on 
the way to heaven." Book of Martyrs, Chap. 11. Of the 
martyrs who had died he says : " Being transferred to the 
heavens themselves and to the paradise of celestial pleasures." 
Book 10, Chap. 1. 

Writing of the latter part of the second century, Eusebius 
says: "But about this time, also, other men sprung up in 
Arabia as the propagators of false opinions. These asserted 
that the human soul, as long as the present state of the 
world existed, perished at death and died with the body, but 
that it would be raised again with the body at the time of 
resurrection." Book 6, Chap. 37. It will be seen that 
these heretics held the same doctrine as the Adventists. 
They were set down in those early days as " propagators of 
false opinions," the same as now. 


Occasionally, here and there, along in the history of the 
church, men have arisen advocating the sleep of the soul 
and the annihilation of the wicked. But the doctrine has 


not met with favor, has been received by but few, has had 
a siekly existence, and has soon disappeared. 

My long acquaintance with it convinced me that it does 
not bear the fruits which Adventists claim for it. They say 
that a belief in this doctrine will save men from infidelity, 
Spiritualism, Universalism, etc. I found it far otherwise. 
A larger proportion have gone into infidelity, Spiritualism, 
and Universalism from Seventh-Day Adventists than from 
any other church with which I am acquainted. The number 
has been fearfully large and is increasing. Where they have 
converted one infidel, they have made several. I often no- 
ticed that infidels and opposers of the church were greatly 
pleased with our attack upon the orthodox faith and that 
they would go away strengthened in their unbelief and 
hatred of the church. This created doubts in my mind as 
to the utility of teaching that doctrine. I noticed also that 
such men as Wesley, Whitefield, Edwards, Spurgeon, 
Moody and others who have uncompromisingly preached 
eternal punishment, have been the most successful in win- 
ning souls and converting skeptics to God. 

I also saw that this doctrine in the hands of the Adventists 
led to strife, contention, discussion, and argument, to the 
loss of piety and devotion. It naturally catches men of that 
turn of mind, instead of the humble and devout. Hence, 
on the whole, I saw no good in it. 

The Adventists assert that the doctrine of the conscious 
state of the dead leads into Spiritualism. But, as stated 
above, facts refute this, as more in proportion to their num- 
bers go into this error from the Adventists than from the 
evangelical churches. These churches strongly hold other 
doctrines which utterly forbid their embracing Spiritualism. 
Further, the Bible forbids seeking to the dead and states 
plainly that they know nothing of things on the earth. See 
Deut. 18: 9-12; Job 14: 21; Eccl. 9: 5, 6; Luke 16: 19-31. 


Hence, after forty years' effort, Spritualism has made no 
more impression upon the church than other errors have, nor 
is there any prospect that it will in the future. 


That which weighs the most with believers in the sleep of 
the dead and annihilation is the rational argument. Many 
texts of scripture are decidedly against them and they feel 
it; but these must be explained away because the orthodox 
doctrine is not reasonable. So far as we can see, nothinsr 
remains alive of the man that dies. Hence Adventists assert 
that death ends all. But this does not necessarily follow. 
The most powerful agencies in the universe are invisible. 
God himself is "invisible." 1 Tim. 1: 17. Adventists be- 
lieve that angels and devils are constantly around us; yet 
w^e never see them. Air envelops us on every side; yet we 
never can see it. Even water converted into steam becomes 
invisible. Take heat, electricity, and gravitation, the most 
powerful agents with which we are acquainted, and they are 
invisible. Who has ever seen gravitation ? We see it pull 
the apple from the tree, the giant oak with a crash to the 
ground, and hold the vast earth in its place around the sun; 
but the thing itself we never see. What is light ? None 
can tell. 

After the study of ages, the profoundest scientists are un- 
able to tell what life is even in its lowest form, in the sim- 
plest plant. We know it exists : w^e see its effects: and we 
see when it departs; but what it is, whence it came, and 
whither it has gone none can tell. Before these unsolved 
problems the greatest minds stand dumb and reverently 
acknowledge the unsearchable wisdom of God. 

But of all the profound mysteries of creation, the greatest 
is that of the human soul, the thinking part of man. What 
is thought ! It can not be seen, nor heard, neither weighed 


nor measured. We can not say, it is so high, or so wide, OT 
so long, or round, or square. How then can we affirm that 
the mind or the spirit can not exist separate from the flesh 
and bones simply because we can not see it go away! Such 
reasoning is only superficial guess-work. As we have seen, 
it would deny the existence of God, angels, devils and the 
greatest forces in nature, as heat, electricity, gravitation, the 
principle of life, etc. God only can tell us about the soul 
and its nature. Hence this is a question which can only be 
settled by the Bible. 

So the great argument for annihilation is that it is un- 
reasonable that God should allow sin and sinners always to 
exist as a blot on his creation. But the same argument 
would prove that an Almighty God of purity and love would 
never have suffered sin to enter his fair creation; or having 
entered, that he would immediately annihilate it. But stub- 
born facts refute this reasoning. Sin and sinners are here. 
They have been here ever since the world began, age after 
age. God did not blot out sin nor sinners as soon as they 
appeared, nor has he manifested special haste to bring them 
to an end. Millions of sinners he suffers to live on, not only 
to no purpose so far as their own salvation is concerned, nor 
as a warning to others; but, as far as we can see, their ex- 
ample hardens others in sin and introduces millions more 
into the world as vile as themselves. Even the fallen angels, 
who are not on probation, whose lives can bring no good to 
themselves, but who live only to lead others aw^ay from 
God, these he has permitted to live on for thousands of 

Who can affirm that what God has thus permitted for 
thousands of years, ever since creation began, so far as we 
know, he can not permit for ages to come, and always ? 
We can say that it would not be according to our ideas of 
wisdom and right. Well, has the past been according to 


our ideas ? Is the present as we would have it ? 
No ; then this explodes that argument. Till we 
have infinite wisdom we had best be careful how we 
8it in judgment on God's ways. Could we bring together 
and see in one place all the sinning, all the pain, suffering, 
woe and anguish, tears and misery in our eaith to-day, it 
would be as horrible as hell itself. Yet God sees it all and 
permits it to go right on. Did we not know it to be a fact, 
we would pronounce it to be irreconcilable with the attri 
butes of God. We simply and devoutly accept what we 
can not explain. Eternal punishment presents no harder 
problem, and hence may be true, all our finite reasonings to 
the contrary notwithstanding. 

Adventists deKght to picture hell with all the horrors of 
literal fire, roasting, torture, etc., and then represent that 
this is just what orthodox churches believe. But no one 
believes or teaches such things. Material things of earth 
are used to represent spiritual things of the other world. 
Hence it is fire in one place, outer darkness in another, 
worms in another, banishment in another, to be cut in two 
or asunder in another, etc. We do not claim to know ex- 
actly what it will be, only that it will be a fearful state of 
eternal punishment. 


The Bible teaches that there is an intelligent spirit in man, 
which exists in a conscious state after the death of the body. 
What is a spirit ? Jesus said, " God is a spirit.'' John 4: 
24; and, "A spirit hath not flesh and bones." Luke 24: 39. 
Here, then, is one intelligent, conscious, immortal spirit 
which has neither fle^^h nor bones. Paul says that he is "the 
Father of spirits," Heb. 12: 9, in contrast with the "fathers 
of our flesh." If he is the Father of spirits, then, necessa- 
rily, these must partake of his nature. Hence Jesus says: 


''That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is 
born of the Spirit is spirit." John 3: 6. Notice the marked 
contrast between flesh and spirit. They are of different 
natures. Isaiah says: " The Egyptians are men, not God; 
and their horses ^^^A and not spirit.''^ As God is superior 
to man, so spirit is superior to flesh. God is the Father of 
our spirits but certainly not of our flesh. Hence Paul says: 
"We are the ofispring of God." Acts IT: 29. Our spirits, 
then, are from a different source, and of a higher nature than 
our bodies. 

So the Holy Spirit, the third person in the Trinity, is an 
intelligent, immortal spirit, without flesh or bones. He ap^ 
peared at the baptism of Jesus, Matt. 3: 16, and at Pente- 
cost, Acts 2: 2-4; he teaches and guides us, John 14: 26; 16: 
10. Here, then, is another immortal spirit. 

The angels are conscious, intelligent persons, yet they are 
spirits. "Who maketh his angels spirits." Heb. 1: 7. So 
the devils are spirits; yet they are intelligent persons and do 
not die. See Mark 5: 1-13. Here a man with an unclean 
spirit met Jesus and knew him. He talked with Jesus and 
said there were many of them in the man. Jesus sent them 
out of the man into the swine. This shows that they can 
exist in a body or out of a body and still be alive and intelli- 
gent in both cases. This shows that spirits are intelligent 
persons, not merely air, or breath, or an influence, as Ad- 
ventists try to prove. So in 1 Kings 22:21, 22, "There 
came forth a spirit and stood before the Lord and said, 1 
will persuade him," Ahab. The Lord told him to go. 

We have seen from Josephus that the Pharisees believed 
in the immortality of the soul; and that the spirit lived after 
the death of the body. On this question Paul declared he 
was a Pharisee. " But when Paul perceived that the one 
part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in 
the council. Men and brethren, 1 am a Pharisee, the son of 


a Pharisee; of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am 
called in question. And when he had so said, there arose a 
dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the 
multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is 
no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees 
confess both." Acts 23: 6-8. The Pharisees believed in the 
resurrection, in angels and in spirits, and so did Paul. Ad- 
ventists believe the first two and deny the third. Paul enu- 
merates several things in heaven as ''Mount Si on," "the 
heavenly Jerusalem," the '' angels," *' God the judge," 
"Jesus," and, finally, "the spirits of just men." Heb. 12: 
22-24. All these texts and many more like them, prove 
that a spirit is an intelligent being, without flesh or bones, 
living and acting the same as men in the body. 

It is easy to show that man has a spirit like these. Thus: 
'There is a spirit in man." "The spirit within me con- 
gtrainethme." Job 32: 8, 18. "The Lord * * * formeth 
the spirit of man within him." Zech. 12: 1. It is spoken of 
as a distinct entity, distinguished from the body. This 
spirit is not dependent upon the body for life, but rather the 
body is dependent upon it. "The body without the spirit is 
dead." James 2: 26. Everywhere the spirit is recognized 
as superior to the body. This spirit in man knows and 
thinks. "What man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
spirit of a man which is in him ?" 1 Cor. 2:11. Then the 
spirit thinks, reasons, knows. Again: "The spirit indeed 
is willing, but the flesh is weak." Matt. 26: 41. So it is 
the spirit that wills. "My spirit made diligent search." 
Fs. 77: 6. Then it is the thinking part of man. 

The spirit does not die with the body. Not once in all 
the Bible is it said or intimated that the spirit ever dies, 
while it is distinctly stated that it does not go down to dust 
with the body. "Then shall the dust return to the earth as 
It was; and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." 


Eccl. 12: 7. This is plain enough. Again: "Who knoweth 
the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the 
beast that goeth downward to the earth?" Eccl. 3: 21. 
Man's spirit, then, goes up to God. The body can be de- 
stroyed without destroying the spirit. '^For the destruction 
of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved." 1 Cor, 5: 5. 
David says: "It is soon cut ofi'and we fly away." Ps. 9:10. 
Yes, we fly away. 

The case of the thief on the cross can never be fairly har- 
monized with the sleep of the soul at death. "And he said 
unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy 
kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, ' Verily I say unto 
thee, to-day shall thou be with me in paradise.' " Luke 23: 
42, 43. All sorts of eflbrts are made to get around the plain 
meaning of this text. But they are futile. Jesus plainly 
said, "Today shall thou be with me in paradise." If he 
w^ent to paradise that df<y, then all Christians go there at 
death. His body did not go to paradise, for it was buried. 
Hence his spirit did live and go there. Immediately after 
this Jesus said, " Father, into thy hands I commend 
my spirit," verse 46. His spirit went with the thief to para- 
dise that day. So the dying Stephen said, "Lord Jesus, re- 
ceive my spirit." Acts 7: 59. This doctrine of the survival 
of the spirit is all through the Bible. 

The Bible represents the body as the tabernacle or temple 
in which the man lives. Jesus said, " Destroy this temple, 
and in three days I will raise it up." "He spake of the 
temple of his body." John 2: 19, 21. So Peter said, "As 
long as I am in this tabernacle." "I must put ofi* this 
my tabernacle." 2 Pet. 1: 13, 14. Paul teaches the 
same doctrine. " Though our outward man perish, yet 
the inward man is renewed day by day." 2 Ccr. 4: 
16. There is, then, an inward man and an outward man. 
The inward man is the substantial man, the one that does 


not perish. Paul proceeds: '* For we know that, if our 
earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a 
building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in 
the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be 
clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: If so 
be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we 
that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: ^ "^ "^ 
Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we 
are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord (for we 
walk by faith, not by sight): We are confident, I say, and 
Avilling rather to be absent from the body, and to be present 
with the Lord." 2 Cor. 5: 1-8. See how clear is Paul's 
statement: "Our earthly house," "tabernacle," "in the 
body," ''absent from the body," etc. Adventists never talk 
that way. At home in the body, absent from the Lord ; but 
absent from the body, present with the Lord. It is only by 
doing violence to the scriptures that this text can be mado 
to harmonize with the idea of the sleep of the soul. 

Again hear Paul. ' ' I knew a man in Christ above four- 
teen years ago (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or 
whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth), such 
a one caught up to the third heaven. x\nd I knew such a 
man (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: 
God knoweth), how that he was caught up into paradise, 
and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a 
man to utter." 2 Cor. 12: 2-4. Then Paul believed a man 
could be out of his body and go to heaven and hear words 
there. Adventists scout such ideas. 

The following text is so plain on the subject of the con- 
scious state of the dead, that Adventists have been greatly 
perplexed over it. They have tried various explanations, 
all contradictory and none satisfactory to themselves, j 
have been there and know. Paul says: "For to me to live is 
Christ, and to die is gain. But if I live in the flesh, this is 


the fruit of my labor: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 
For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, 
and to be with Christ; which is far better: Nevertheless to 
abide in the flesh is more needful for you." Phil. 1: 21-24. 
"To die is gain," "a desire to depart and be with Christ," "1 
live in the flesh," '^abide in the flesh" — this was Paul's faith. 
He was in a strait betwixt two, whether to remain in the 
flesh and preach Christ and aid his brethren or depart and be 
with Christ. How utterly contrary to Adventist ideas this is. 

See the same doctrine so definitely taught in the case of 
the rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16: 19-31. "And it came 
to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels 
into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was 
buried; and in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, 
and seeth Abraham afar ofi*, and Lazarus in his bosom. And 
he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and 
send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, 
and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.' But 
Abraham said, 'Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime re- 
ceivedest thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: 
but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And be- 
side all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: 
so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; 
neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.' 
Then he said, 'I pray thee therefore father, that thou wouldst 
send him to my father's house: for I have five brethren; that 
he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place 
of torment. ' Abraham saith unto him, ' They have Moses 
and the prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'Nay, 
father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, 
they will repent.' " 

1. This is Christ's own teaching. 2. As we have seen, 
it was what the Pharisees believed with regard to the dead. 
3. Jesus accepts and confirms their doctrine. 4. These 


events occured between death and the resurrection, while 
the brethren of the rich man were yet alive on earth. 5. 
Hence immediately after death and before the resurrection 
the rich man is in hell and Lazarus is rewarded. 6. They 
are both conscious. 7. Abraham is alive over there. 8. 
Both think and talk. Hence the dead certainly know some- 
thing. Had we no other text, this alone would disprove th« 
sleep of the dead. 

Again Jesus said God is " the God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. God is not the God 
of the dead, but of the livins^." Matt. 22: 32. Then those 
patriarchs are alive and not blotted out of existence at death. 
Once more: '' Fear not them which kill the body, but are 
not able to kill the soul." Matt. 10: 28. If the body is all 
there is of the man, if the soul is simply the life of the body, 
then men can kill the soul. But Jesus says they can not 
kill the soul. It does not, then, die with the body. How 
squarely these plain texts contradict the Adventist faith; yet 
they claim to go by the Bible. So we find Moses on the 
mount with Jesus, though he had died and was buried fifteen 
hundred years before, Deut. 32. "Behold, there appeared 
unto them Moses and Elias talking with him." Matt. IT: 3. 
But why quote more ? These are decisive. 

Many of the texts quoted to prove the sleep of the soul 
refer only to the body. Thus Gen. 3: 19, *'Dust thou art, 
and unto dust shalt thou return." This can not refer to the 
spirit which has neither flesh nor bones, Luke 24: 39, but re- 
turns to God at death, Eccl. 12: 7. Read their proof texts. 
"David slept with his fathers, and was buried in the city of 
David." 1 Kings 2: 10. Was David's spirit buried? "So 
man lieth down, and riseth not. * "^ Oh, that thou 
wouldst hide me in the grave." Job 14: 12, 13. Did Job's 
spirit lie down in the grave ? Was it hid in the dust ! 
Hardly. "If I wait, the grave is mine house." Job 17:13. 


Does the spirit go into the grave? *' There is no work, no 
device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave whithei 
thou goest." Eccl. 9: 10. ''Many of them that sleep in 
the dust of the earth." Dan. 12:2. ''Lazarus sleepth," 
"Lazarus is dead." "By this time he stinketh." John 11: 
11, 14, 39. Could this be said of the spirit ? Did the spirit 
of Lazarus decay ? Surely not. Take their favorite text, 
Acts 2: 34. "David is not ascended into the heavens." 
The context shows plainly that this is said of the body. 
"He is both dead and buried and his sepulcher is with us." 
" He spake of the resurrection of Christ." Verses 29, 31. 
So in 1 Cor. 15, the several expressions about being asleep 
are all explained by the subject discussed — the resurrection 
of the body. 1 Thess. 4:13-16, is explained the same way. 
Paul is referring to the resurrection. That whole class of 
texts refers only to the bodies which go into the grave at 
death. As the spirit does not go there, these texts have no 
reference to it, and hence prove nothing concerning it. One 
simple text explains them all : " The graves were opened 
and many bodies of the saints which slept arose." Matt. 
27: 52. Yes, graves, bodies ^ slept — that is the whole of it. 
Adventists might go to our orthodox hymn-books and select 
expressions about our friends being asleep and in their 
graves and thus prove that we all believe in the sleep of the 
soul. But it would be false, as we know it refers only to the 

So their main text, Eccl. 9: 5-10, "The dead know not any 
thing," is limited by the context to " any thing that is done 
under the sun," verse 6. Compare this with other texts 
where the same expression is used. " With Absolom went 
two hundred men * * * They went in their simplicity, 
and they k?iew not any thing.'''' 2 Sam. 15: 11. Another : 
"But the lad knew not any thing/ only Jonathan and David 
knew the matter." 1 Sam. 20: 39. Of a self-conceited 


teacher Paul says, "He is proud, knowing nothing y 
1 Tim. 6 : 4. Were all these absolutely without thought 
or consciousness ? No. It simply means that they knew 
nothing about the things mentioned. So of Eccl. 9 : 5. 
The context explains it. " Neither have they any more a 
portion forever in any thing that is done under' the sun.^^ 
Yerse 6. 

Psalms 146 : 3, 4, " Put not your trust in princes, nor in 
the son of man, in whom there is no help. His breath 
goeth forth, he returneth to his earth ; in that very day 
his thoughts perish." His thoughts, his purposes. The 
margin of the Kevised Version reads " purposes." The 
Greek word for thoughts is dialogisinoi. Greenfield de- 
fines it " reasoning, ratiocination, thought, cogitation, ^^^r- 
pose.''^ If we rely upon earthly princes, when they die 
their purposes perish and we are left helpless. So this 
text is easily explained as are also the few remaining 
ones which are used to teach the sleep of the dead. 


Appendix A 

Battle Creek, Mich., furnishes a good illustration of 
the failure of Adventism after a fair trial. Beginning in 
1855, it was the headquarters of the denomination for about 
a half century. It was the home of Elder White and wife. 
For all those years it had the benefit of the labours of all 
their strongest men, and the influence of their great general 
conferences. Here were built, at immense cost, their great 
institutions, as their large publishing houses, their college, 
their great sanitarium of world renown, their large taber- 
nacle, etc. When I withdrew iu 1887, there were nearly 
two fhousand Sabbath keepers here, all united. Often I 
preached in that great tabernacle when every seat, below 
and in the gallery, was full. In the college I taught one 
class of about two hundred, aU young men and women 
preparing to work either as ministers or Bible readers. 
Now, 1914, the college is closed and lost to the cause ; 
the sanitarium has revolted from the denomination, and 
nearly all the management, doctors, nurses and helpers are 
Sunday keepers ; the publishing houses were burned and 
the remnant moved away ; the church has dwindled down 
to about four or five hundred ; the tabernacle is largely 
empty and an elephant on their hands ; three separate com- 
panies of Sabbath keepers now meet every Sabbath, having 
no connection with each other. Worse still, large numbers 
have backslidden, lost faith in everything, and attend no 
where. It has been like a desolating cyclone. 



About tweuty years ago amoug the strongest raeu in the 
ranks, men of whom the whole denomination was proud, 
were Dr. J. H. Kellogg, head of the sanitarium ; Elder 
A. T. Jones, editor, author, minister, orator ; Elder E. J. 
Waggoner, editor, author, preacher ; Elder Geo. Tenney 
editor, minister, missionary ; Elder L. McCoy, minister, 
chaplain of sanitarium 5 with many persons in important po- 
sitions as business managers, college professors, doctors, etc. 
All these are now out of the church, and all their influence 
is against the body. 

What has happened here is constantly happening all over 
the field in their old churches. It is in new fields and for- 
eign lands where their history is unknown, that their chief 
gains are made. I can name large numbers of churches 
all over the land, which were large, strong churches thirty 
and forty years ago. Now they are either extinct or only a 
little handful meeting in the corner of an old church. Such 
are Norridgewock, Maine, Danvers, Mass., Memphis, Wright, 
and Monteray, Mich. ; Knoxville, Sigourney, Winter "set 
and Osceola, Iowa, with scores of smaller churches in many 
of the states. The thing does not wear. If the past is 
any guide, twenty years hence many of their strong men 
now will leave and oppose them, and many of their best 
churches will go down. In 1912, the latest statistics avail- 
fable, with 4,000 workers in the field, with millions of money 
spent, they only gained 4,000 in membership in all the world, 
or only one for every labourer ! The Review and Herald^ 
April 23, 1914, says : '' Take 1912 as a basis, and we find 
that it cost this denomination practically from $900 to $1,000 
for every person added to the church membership." 

How does this compare with the claims that theirs is the 
most wonderful message the world ever had and that the 
power of God is with them as with no other people ? Cold 
facts are against them. 


Appendix B 

The system of Seventh-Day Adventism rests for its foun- 
dation on the unsupported theories of an uneducated old 
farmer in his last days and the reveries of a totally un- 
educated, unread, sickly, excitable girl. Wm. Miller, the 
founder of Adventism, was sixty-one years old in 1843, the 
year he set for the end of the world. He died six years 
later, disappointed and confused. He had only a limited 
country schooling. He rejected all Biblical helps and de- 
pended solely upon his own ideas of the Bible. See ''Life 
of Miller, " by James White, pages 46, 48, 59. He accepted 
as infallibly correct the dates then found in the margin of 
the Bible. These were arranged by Usher according to the 
best information then obtainable. Later investigations 
have shown these dates to be incorrect by many years. 
Miller based all his figures on these old dates and fixed by 
these to a year, the beginning and ending of every prophetic 
period in the Bible ! By this he set 1843 for the end of the 
world and all other periods to fit that date, such as the 
seventy weeks, the 2,300 days, the 1,335 days, the 1,290 
days, the 1,260 days, the seven churches, seven seals, 
trumx)ets, etc. He said all were absolutely correct ! 

Then came the present Mrs. White, a mere girl, wholly 
unacquainted with history or chronology, and set her seal 
to all Miller's figures and dates, said not one must be al- 
tered. Hear her: "I have seen that the 1843 chart was 
directed by the hand of the Lord and that it should not be 
altered, that the figures were as he wanted them." " Early 
Writings," page 64, edition of 1882. By these dates the 
whole denomination must always abide, right or wrong ! 
So their whole prophetic system rests upon the figures of an 
old farmer and an ignorant girl made seventy years ago ! 
God pity them. 


Appendix C 

The fanatical expectations of Adventists. For about seventy 
years Seventh-Day Adventists have predicted that a few 
months, or years, before the end, the Holy Ghost would be 
poured out upon them like Pentecost. They call it ^'the 
latter rain.'''' Then will occur the " Loud Cry " to close up 
the work. Now, 1914, they preach and publish that all 
this has begun and the work is to close up quickly ! Of 
this work Mrs. White says: ''Miracles are wrought, the 
sick are healed, and signs and wonders follow the believers.'^ 
"Great Controversy," page 430, edition of 1884. She de- 
votes five chapters predicting the wonders to occur just 
before the end. Bead them. I can only sketch a few 
items. Satan will appear personally and visibly to all, in 
dazzling glory, claiming that he is Christ come to earth. 
All the world but Adventists accept him as such. He 
smiles on them and blesses them. All shout ' ' Christ has 
come." Then Satan tells them that Adventists are wicked 
blasphemers for working on Sunday and must all be killed. 
Pages 442, 443. Bead it. 

Spiritualism has taken possession of all the churches, 
pages 405, 422 ; church and state have united, pages 423, 
424, not only in the United States, but ' ' throughout all 
Christendom," page 444; Satan then moves all legislative 
bodies to issue an edict that all Sabbath keepers shall be 
killed and exterminated unless they recant by a certain 
day. " No man may buy or sell '^ who does not keep Sun- 
day, page 422; whoever refuses ''shall be put to death." 
Sabbath keepers " will be thrust into prison, some will be 
exiled, some will be treated as slaves." Page 426. "They 
are threatened with destruction." Page 427. Adventists 
" will then flee from the cities and villages and associate to- 
gether in companies, dwelling in the most desolate and soli- 
tary places." Page 445. "Many of all nations will be 


cast into unjust and cruel boudage and sentenced to be 
slain." Page 445. " In every quarter compauies of armed 
men, urged on by hosts of evil angels, are preparing for the 
work of death, with shouts of triumph, with jeers and im- 
precations, they are about to rush upon their prey. " Page 

Jast then Christ appears and 144,000 Seventh-Day Ad- 
ventists are caught up in the clouds and saved. All the 
rest of mankind, worldlings, Methodists, Baptists, and all 
Sunday keepei-s, are utterly destroyed ! This is what Ad- 
ventists believe and tciich. Eead the above quoted book. 
Of all the wild, fanatical theories ever preached this is the 
climax. To bring this about the wheels of progress would 
have to be turned back a thousand years. It would be the 
most miraculous revolution the world ever saw, and all 
within a few short years! It is to be world-wide — '■^ all 
nations.'''' Page 445. India, China, Japan, where they care 
nothing for Sunday, will decree that all must die who work 
that day I The trend of the whole world is exactly the 
other way, — separation of church and state, greater liberty 
of thought, greater toleration of all religious beliefs, and 
greater laxity of Sunday observance ; a man is blind who 
cannot see this. 

Appendix D 

The supremacy of the pope, not Sunday, is the *' Mark " of 
the papacy. The one supreme claim of the papacy, the one 
all essential test of the loyalty of every Catholic, the one 
thing which every Catholic must swear to when he joins 
that church, the one thing above all others insisted upon in 
all catechisms and doctrinal books, is the supremacy of the 
pope of Rome. No one can be a Catholic and deny this 
claim. Subscribe to this, and all else follows. During the 
papal supremacy tens of thousands were martyred because 


they would not bow to the authority of the pope. It was 
this that brought on the great Keformatiou under Luther 
and originated the name Frotestant It is what all Prot- 
estant churches have been warning against for three hundred 
years. The test, the mark, of the loyalty of a Mohammedan 
is to acknowledge the supreme authority of Mohammed as 
a prophet ; of a Mormon, to acknowledge J. Smith as 
God's prophet ; of a Christian Scientist, to acknowledge 
the authority of Mrs. Eddy ; of a Catholic, to acknowledge 
the authority of the pope of Eome as supreme. 

In this city we have several Catholic churches and scores 
of other churches which keep Sunday. Does anybody 
think of these churches as Catholic because they keep Sun- 
day ? No. Do Catholics think of them as Catholics on this 
account ? No. Do these churches themselves ever think of 
themselves as Catholics because they keep Sunday? 'No. 
Is it then a marlc of a Catholic to keep Sunday ? No, be- 
cause no one, either Catholic, Protestant, worldling, or any 
one else, ever thinks of it as the mark of a Catholic. Hence 
as nobody in the church or out ever regards a person as a 
Catholic because he keeps Sunday, that cannot be the mark 
of a papist. 

But the moment any person acknowledges the authority 
of the pope as supreme, every one regards him as a Cath- 
olic, a papist. And the Catholic church so regards him. 
But if he simply keeps Sunday and denies the authority of 
the pope, will the Catholic church accept him ? Emphat- 
ically no. Then what is the test, the mark, of a papist ? It 
is to acknowledge the supremacy of the pope of Eome. 
That marks him as a Catholic. 

Thus ''Johnson's New Universal Encyclopaedia^' says: 
" Eoman Catholic Church, that body of Christians which 
acknowledges the authority of the pope of Eome." The 
same article gives the creed to which every Catholic must 
swear obedience thus : " I promise and swear true obedience 


to the JBishop of Eorne, successor of St. Peter, Prince of the 
apostles, aud Vicar of Jesus Christ.'^ 

Here you have the mark of that church. It is uot keeping 
Sunday, but the supreme authority of the Pope. Every 
Catholic catechism or doctrinal work has in bold letters this 
headline : 

*' Marks of the Church.'^ 

Sunday keeping is never given as one of them, but the su- 
premacy of the pope is always given. Mark well this fact. 

Appendix E 

The following statement I drew up, and read to a leading 
Catholic priest of Grand Rapids, Mich., who readily signed 
it, as will be seen below : 

" The Catholic doctrine of the change of the Sabbath is 
this : The ajiostles, by instruction from Jesus Christ, 
changed the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday to com- 
memorate the resurrection of Christ aud the descent of the 
Holy Ghost, both of which occurred on Sunday. The 
change was made by the apostles themselves, and hence by 
divine authority, at the very beginning of the church. 
There are references to this change in Acts 20 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 
16 : 1, 2 ; Eev. 1 : 10, etc. Yet these texts do not state posi- 
tively such a change ; hence Catholics go to the statements 
of the early Christian Fathers, where this change by the 
apostles is confirmed aud put beyond doubt. Catholics also 
rely upon tlie tradition of the church which says that the 
change was made by the aj)ostles. Catholics never teach 
that the change of the day was made by the church two or 
three hundred years after Christ. Such a statement would 
be contrary to all the facts of history and the traditions of 
the church. 

"The Holy Catholic Church began with the apostles. 


St. Peter was the first pope. Hence, when they say that 
the church changed the Sabbath, they mean that it was 
done by the church in the days of the apostles. Neither the 
church nor the pope, two or three hundred years after the 
apostles, had anything whatever to do with changing the 
Sabbath, for the change had been made ages before. Cath- 
olics do not call the first day of the week the Sabbath, for 
that was Saturday j but they call it Sunday, or the Lord's 

"The above statement by Eev. D. M. Canright is true and 
pure Catholic doctrine.— Eev. James C. Pulcher, Pastor of 
St. James' Church, Grand Rapids, Mich." 

In answer to my question Archbishop Ireland wrote me 
thus : 

^^8t. Faul^ March 2, 19 U. 
**My dear Sir : — In answering your question I would 
state that the Jewish Sabbath was simply a positive precept 
in the Mosaic law and lapsed with that law. The apostles 
and early Christians instituted the Sunday as a day of 
special prayer in honor of the great mysteries of the Christian 
religion : the resurrection and the coming of the Holy Spirit^ 
both occurring on the first day of the week. 

" Very sincerely, 

"John Ireland." 

I have carefully examined the " Catholic Encyclopsedia,'' 
the " Catholic Dictionary," a large number of Catholic cate- 
chisms, large and small, and all agree in locating the change 
of the Sabbath in the time of the apostles and by the apos- 
tles. This is emphatically the doctrine of the Catholic 
church. Not a single Catholic authority ever locates the change 
anywhere else, Adventists are unfair in omitting this fact 
when they quote only a part of what Catholics say. The 
above Catholic authorities quote Acta 20 : 7 ; 1 Cor. 16 : 2 ; 
Rev. 1 : 10, the same as Protestants do as evidence that the 
observance of the Lord's Day originated with the apostles. 


Date Due 

^■V r 

Princeton Theologi' 

al Seminary-Speer Libtary 

1 1012 01003 2086